CRLP/589/2021 of P SURYANARAYANA REDDY Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 31 December 2024

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) by the petitioners/accused to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.314 of 2020 of the Chebrole Police Station, West Godavari District for the offences registered under Section 409 of IPC.

2. The petitioner herein is the accused and the 2[nd] respondent herein is the de facto complainant in F.I.R.No.314 of 2020 of the Chebrole Police Station, West Godavari District.

3. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

a) The petitioner was the then Registrar of Dr. Y.S.R Horticultural University, Venkataramannagudem, West Godavari District and he retired from service on 31.05.2011. One Y. Nageswara Rao, Senior Assistant, Administrative Office, Dr. YSR Horticultural University, Venkataramannagudem, submitted an application to the Public Information Officer & Registrar, Dr. YSR Horticultural University, requesting to furnish information regarding the score cards of the Senior Assistants who appointed in the direct recruitment held in the year 2010. In response to which, the present Registrar of the University i.e., the 2[nd] respondent informed the applicant that the score cards are not available in the office since the then Registrar has not handed over the concerned records to the then Registrars while relieving from his duties. The applicant approached the Andhra Pradesh Information Commission for obtaining the information and the Commission issued notice to the present Registrar of the University directing him to attend the hearing on 10.12.2019 and 19.12.2019 at Commissioners Chamber. In response, the Registrar, Dr. YSR Horticulture University filed written affidavits stating that the score cards are not available and they are not handed over by the then Registrar. The Commission did not accept the reason given by the present Registrar that the then Registrar has not handed over the relevant records and the certificates are 10 years old and at that time the University office is in the rented building and subsequently changed into the new building. The Information Commission disposed the appeal by stating that it is the duty of the present Registrar to lodge a Complaint to the police against the then Registrar for not handing over the relevant records and directed the Public Information Officer to furnish information to the Appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order and submit compliance report.

b) Pursuant to the direction issued by the Information Commission, the present Registrar i.e., the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner/accused alleging that the petitioner did not handover the relevant records while he was relieving from duties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner worked as Registrar in Dr. YSR Horticulture University, Venkataramannagudem, and he retired from service on 31.05.2011. While relieving from his duties, the petitioner submitted all the records to the committee of the University. In the complaint filed by the 2[nd] respondent it was stated that the then Registrar did not handover the relevant records and the petitioner is responsible for furnishing the score cards of the candidates who appeared in direct recruitment for the post of Senior Assistants.

5. Learned counsel further states that one Dr. B. Srinivasulu, the then Controller of the Examinations conducted the written test for recruitment of Senior Assistants in the year 2010 and as he is the designated information officer he is in control of the entire file including the score cards of the candidates who attended the interview for direct recruitment.

6. Learned counsel contends that after more than 2 ½ years, the University by its letter dated 18.12.2013 asked the petitioner to furnish copies of the score cards of candidates who attended the interview during the year 2010 and the petitioner also addressed a letter to the present Registrar stating that he submitted all the relevant records of the University while relieving from his duties. But in spite of the same, after a lapse of ten years, the 2[nd]respondent filed compliant against the petitioner and that too after the petitioner’s retirement, four members have taken charge and discharged their duties as Registrars in the University.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the Registrar, Administrative Office, Dr. YSRHU, VR Gudem, dated 03.03.2017, wherein the partial information pertaining to appointments-2010 i.e., the marks secured by the Senior Assistants have been furnished in a tabular form. In the proceedings, it was stated that the file pertaining to selections of Senior Assistants under direct recruitments is available.

8. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the letter dated 19.03.2020, wherein the present Registrar/2[nd] respondent herein mentioned that the records of the Senior Technical Assistants are in the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, hence, the information will be sent after the hearing. In view of the fact that even though the information is available with the present Registrar, the 2[nd] respondent filed FIR No.314 of 2020 against the petitioner for not handing over the relevant records. Learned counsel contends that the 2[nd] respondent gave false complaint to the police without even mentioning the role played by the petitioner in the alleged offence.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant submits that as per the directions of the A.P. Information Commission, the 2[nd]respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner who was the then Registrar and Chairman of the Committees of the University during the direct recruitment of Senior Assistants in the year 2010. Even though there were four members who discharged their duties as Registrars, the petitioner herein is the concerned Officer to furnish information regarding the score cards who worked in the year 2010. Hence, the 2[nd] respondent filed FIR against the petitioner.

10. As seen from the record, the petitioner retired as Registrar in the year 2011 and nearly after ten years, the 2[nd] respondent made a complaint against the petitioner alleging that he is responsible for furnishing the relevant records of the year 2010. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, four Registrars have discharged their duties as Registrars in the University after the retirement of the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent filed F.I.R.No.314 of 2020 against the petitioner without even mentioning his name or the offence committed by him.

11. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the information of the required score cards of the candidates in the direct recruitment was partially furnished by the present Registrar vide his letter dated 03.03.2017, which depicts that the petitioner submitted all the relevant records of the University to his successor while demitting his office as Registrar.

12. As seen from the complaint filed by the 2[nd] respondent, no specific allegation against the petitioner about his entrustment was mentioned. In fact, the missing certificates were identified by the university. The proceedings of the 2[nd] respondent dated 19.03.2020 and 22.06.2020, specifically mentioned that the certificates sought by the petitioner through RTI were in the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, hence, the requested information will be sent after finalisation of the case pending before the Hon’ble High Court. The university authorities themselves admitted that the required certificates are in their custody. Therefore, the allegation levelled against the petitioner that he did not handover the same does not arise in this case and moreover, the university authorities misunderstood the observation made by the Information Commission directing the Public Information Officer to furnish information to the appellant therein within four weeks from the date of the receipt of the order to submit compliance report in an application filed by Y. Nageswar Rao, Dr. YSR Horticultural University, Venkataramannagudem, but surprisingly, the de facto complainant-R2 herein has initiated criminal proceedings as against the petitioner, who in fact got retired from the service in the year 2020 itself.

13. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent submitted that the committee of the University checked the list of records produced by the petitioner and as the committee did not trace the score cards of the candidates who appeared in the year 2010, they conducted an inquiry, and submitted a report to that effect. Though respondent No.2 contended that after conducting enquiry they came to conclusion that the score boards of the candidates who appeared in the year 2010 were not traceable, but has failed to file the said report before this Court along with counter.

14. It is an admitted fact that nearly after a lapse of ten years i.e., in the year 2020, the complaint was filed against the petitioner herein at the belated stage, who admittedly got retired from service in the year 2010 itself, and it is also a case of the petitioner herein that after the retirement of the petitioner herein, four Registrars have served the University, who are also responsible for the allegations made in the compliant.

15. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings against the petitioner/accused are liable to be quashed.

16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings in FIR.No.314 of 2020 of Chebrole Police Station, Guntur District, against the petitioner/accused.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

__________________

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

Date: 31.12.2024 KAS