Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
M/S Src Aviations Pvt Ltd, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 24 April, 2025
//1//
CRLP 2275 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT
AMARAVATI
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
+CRIMINAL PETITION No.2275 OF 2024
%24.04.2025
#Between:
M/s.SRC Aviations Pvt.Ltd., rep by Brig.Mohinder Kumar Idani
(CEO), Suite # 507, G-5 Building, Terminal 1, IGI Airport, New
Delhi-110037.
...Petitioner
AND
THe State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Special Public
Prosecutor for CBI, High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravathi and another.
...Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY DESAI
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. P.S.P.Suresh kumar,Spl.Public Prosecutor For C.B.I.
2. T B L MURTHY
The Court made the following:
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
This Court made the following:
//2//
CRLP 2275 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT
AMARAVATI
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
+CRIMINAL PETITION No.2275 OF 2024
%24.04.2025
#Between:
M/s.SRC Aviations Pvt.Ltd., rep by Brig.Mohinder Kumar Idani
(CEO), Suite # 507, G-5 Building, Terminal 1, IGI Airport, New
Delhi-110037.
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Special Public
Prosecutor for CBI, High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravathi and another.
...Respondents.
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 24.04.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may
be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of order may be marked
to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the order?
Yes/No
____________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
//3//
CRLP 2275 OF 2024
APHC010154112024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2275/2024
Between:
M/s Src Aviations Pvt Ltd, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Pradesh and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY DESAI
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. P.S.P.Suresh kumar,Spl.Public Prosecutor For C.B.I.
2. T B L MURTHY
The Court made the following:
//4//
CRLP 2275 OF 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
CRLP.No.2275 of 2024
ORDER :
1. The present criminal petition is filed seeking to quash CC
1107 of 2023 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge –
Cum – V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Vijaywada. The
petitioner is arraigned as accused number 17 in the said
case for the alleged offenses under Section 120B. 409,
420, 468, 471, 477A of IPC.
2. As per the complaint filed by the respondent, the first
accused enter into a criminal conspiracy with private
persons and caused wrongful loss and corresponding
wrongful gain to themselves by misusing his official position
by making premature closure of government deposits of
Andhra Pradesh Building and other Construction workers
welfare board Hyderabad and misappropriated funds of
₹12,00,00,000.
3. It is the case for the prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 30
entered into criminal conspiracy during the period March
2014 to June 2015 with an intention to cheat Syndicate
Bank SME Branch, Kadapa and in pursuance of the said
//5//
CRLP 2275 OF 2024
conspiracy, the 1st accused has misused his official position
by closing the deposits of Andhra Pradesh Building and
other Construction Welfare Workers, Hyderabad
prematurely and transferring the funds to the accounts of
third parties. The accused Nos. 2 and 5 have been
instrumental in transfer of an amount of Rs.12,00,00,000/-
into various accounts and thereafter the said amounts were
shared amounts the accused.
4. As per the charge sheet filed by the 2nd respondent the first
accused had transferred amounts to the second accused
and the 5th accused was instrumental in obtaining an open
offer letter from the first accused with regard to the interest
rate on domestic term deposit of ₹10,00,00,000 and above.
It is also stated that the 5th accused has introduced himself
as Manager of Syndicate Bank, Kadapa to the Secretary
and CEO of Andhra Pradesh building and other
construction workers welfare board and submitted the offer
letter issued by accused number one and sought deposits.
The Secretary and CEO accepted the proposal of the 5th
accused and thereafter prepared a note to invest
₹7,00,00,000/- with Syndicate Bank SME branch, Kadapa
//6//
CRLP 2275 OF 2024
and subsequently transferred the same for fixed deposits. It
is the case of the prosecution that the accused number 2
had handed over the original fixed deposit receipt to
accused number 5 at Hyderabad for making a fake FDR in
the name of AP Building and other construction workers
welfare board (hereinafter be referred as ‘welfare board’). A
fake FDR was generated by the 5th accused and he
submitted the fake FDR with the with the welfare board.
5. It is also stated in the charge sheet that the first accused
issued another photocopy of the letter intimating the
interest rate on domestic term deposits of ₹10,00,00,000/-
and above to accused number 5. The accused number five
thereafter got another depot deposit of ₹5,00,00,000 from
the welfare board. The 5th accused again got fake FDR on
the name of welfare board and submitted the fake FDR for
record purposes to the welfare board.
6. These deposits were prematurely closed by furnishing the
original FDR receipts with the bank. The 5th accused had
submitted fake FDR receipts with the welfare board for their
records and retained the original FD receipts which were
misused by the 5th accused. The first accused misused his
//7//
CRLP 2275 OF 2024
position and transferred the prematurely closed fixed
deposits amount. Thus, the accused have committed
offences charged under Section 120B. 409, 420, 468, 471,
477-A of IPC.
7. It is also stated in the charge sheet that the second
accused had withdrawn amount of ₹1,69,00,000/- from the
amounts deposited into the account of universal minerals
and chemicals and subsequently the said amount was
shared amongst accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5. The charge
sheet also details the manner in which the amounts were
transferred from one account to the other account and how
the other accused had allegedly withdrawn the amounts.
8. In so far as the role of the petitioner is concerned it is
stated in the charge sheet that the accused No.6 issued
RTGS application on 30.05.2014 for transfer of an amount
of ₹38,48,350/- from his account to the account of the
petitioner. It is stated in the charge sheet that the petitioner
invested an amount of ₹1,10,00,000 in mutual funds of
DSP Black Rock Mutual Fund vide check bearing number
007854, dated 03.06.2014. It is also stated that the
//8//
CRLP 2275 OF 2024
petitioner and accused number 5 and 6 have shared the
said amount.
9. The other averments of the charge sheet do not relate to
the petitioner as such they may not be relevant for the
purpose of deciding this case. The role of the petitioner as
per the charge sheet is that amounts were transferred to
the accounts of the petitioner and that the petitioner
invested those amounts or part of those amounts in mutual
funds and subsequently it is alleged that the petitioner
shared the amount with accused number 5 and 6.
10. The learned Senior Counsel Sri O.Manohar Reddy
appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the
allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is said
to have received an amount of Rs 38,48,350 from the
account of the accused no 16 towards the aviation services
rendered by the petitioner.
11. It is submitted that except for the allegation that the amounts
were transferred to the account of the petitioner towards the
aviation services of the petitioner, the role of the petitioner
insofar as commission of the alleged offences under Section
//9//
CRLP 2275 OF 2024
406, 409, 420, 468, 471, 477. A of IPC cannot be made
applicable to the petitioner herein. It is further submitted by
the Learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner company is a
market leader in providing charter services to corporates
and others since the year 1976. It is also submitted by the
Learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner was catering to
the aviation services of one Shaurya Aviation Private
Limited and entered into a contract with them. The clients of
Shaurya Aviation Private Limited were making direct
payments to the petitioner company, against the invoices
raised for the services rendered. It is also submitted that the
petitioner had only rendered aviation services to its clients
and has charged them by raising invoices. The petitioner
cannot be considered as a part of the conspiracy when the
petitioner received monies for the aviation services.
12. On these grounds, the petitioner cannot be arraigned as an
accused along with others for the alleged offences with
which the petitioner has no connection either directly or
indirectly or even remotely.
13. It is also submitted by the Learned Senior Counsel that the
petitioner has furnished all the details relating to the
//10//
CRLP 2275 OF 2024
Contract which the petitioner had with Shaurya Aviation, the
documents of Airport Authority of India relating to the flights
and their invoices, refuelling invoices, flight manifesto, flight
record book, payment and correspondence with regarding
outstanding dues and all the other related issues to the
investigating officer under acknowledgement. Despite
providing all details, the investigating officer has erred in
arraigning the petitioner as an accused.
14. It is submitted that a vague and passing allegation is made
in the charge sheet that the petitioner has invested an
amount of Rs 1,10,00,000/- in mutual funds on 03.06.2014
and that thereafter the amounts were shared amongst
Accused 5, 6 and the petitioner. The Learned Senior
Counsel would also submit that the petitioner cannot be
found fault with for dealing with the income generated out of
business in the manner the petitioner thought fit to deal with.
The investment of the petitioner in mutual funds from and
out of the income generated/revenue generated from the
business conducted by the petitioner cannot become a
ground for arraying the petitioner as an accused. It is also
submitted that there is absolutely no material for the
//11//
CRLP 2275 OF 2024
investigating officer to arraign the petitioner as an accused.
It is also submitted that in absence of any evidence and in
absence of any statement pointing the involvement of the
petitioner in the commission of alleged offence, the
petitioner cannot be arraigned as an accused and
continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is
manifestly illegal and as such the case against the petitioner
ought to be quashed.
15. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent
submits that there are specific allegations against the
petitioner and that all the accused are charged of offences
under Section 120B of IPC. As such, the involvement or
otherwise of the petitioner can be ascertained after a full-
fledged trial. It is also submitted that the investigating officer
after completion of investigation has filed a charge sheet
after recording the statements of as many as 38 witnesses.
It is further submitted by the Learned Standing Counsel for
the respondent that the invoices submitted by the petitioner
to the investigating officer are all after 30.05.2014. As such,
they cannot be relied upon for the purpose of this case. The
//12//
CRLP 2275 OF 2024
Learned Standing Counsel prays for dismissing the quash
petition.
16. The Learned Standing Counsel also submits that a detailed
counter is filed on behalf of the respondents and that the
allegation against the petitioner of investing in mutual funds
and thereafter sharing the amounts with accused Nos. 5 & 6
are specifically made in the Charge Sheet. It is also
submitted that the respondents in their counter have denied
the claim of the petitioner and submit that the Case against
the petitioner cannot be quashed at this stage.
17. In reply, the Learned Senior Counsel submits that in the
aviation industry booking of aircrafts well in advance by
making advance payment is an existing norm. It is submitted
that all the documents relating to the bookings made, flights
arranged, fuel invoices etc were submitted to the
Investigating officer. However, they do not find place in the
charge sheet or they are not even referred to by any of the
witness. It is submitted that there is absolutely no document
or any statement from any of the listed witnesses who speak
about involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the
alleged crime in connivance with the others in crime. It is
//13//
CRLP 2275 OF 2024
submitted that merely conducting of business and receiving
payments for the services rendered cannot make the
petitioner liable for criminal prosecution for alleged offences
committed by some other accused. It is also submitted in
reply that the petitioner is seeking quashing of CC 1107 of
2023 not the FIR as stated at Para 7 of the counter filed by
the respondent.
18. Heard the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the
Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. Perused the
record.
19. The petitioner is in the private aviation business for almost
the last 50 years. The petitioner is facing prosecution for the
alleged offences under section 120 B, 409, 468, 471, 477-A
of IPC. Section 409 of IPC cannot be made applicable to
the petitioner. The role of the petitioner for attracting the
provisions of section 468,471, 477 A of IPC has to be
ascertained by the investigating officer during the course of
his investigation. Perused the entire record, the investigating
officer has recorded the statements of witnesses who are
either employees of the banks or the officers relating to the
welfare board, Hyderabad. The investigating officer has
//14//
CRLP 2275 OF 2024
recorded the statements of four other witnesses who are
unconnected with the petitioner, they also do not support the
version of the prosecution linking the petitioner to the crime.
20. The investigating officer has curiously not recorded the
statements of any of the witnesses from either the Airport
Authority of India or the statements of any witnesses who
maintained the flight record book or the flight manifesto or
the other witnesses relating to the oil companies who raised
the fuel bills on the petitioner.
21. If the investigating officer disbelieved the documents
submitted by the petitioner and had reasons to believe that
the documents were generated for escaping from the law,
the Investigating officer ought to have recorded the
statements of the concerned witnesses to establish that the
documents submitted by the petitioner were dis-
believable/fabricated. None of the provisions of law which
the accused are charged of having committed can be
attributed to the acts of the petitioner with the available
material on record.
22. Admittedly and evidently the petitioner has no role in either
securing of deposits from the welfare board. Similarly the
//15//
CRLP 2275 OF 2024
petitioner has no role in creation of the fake FDR receipts.
Role of the petitioner in pre-closing the deposits and
transferring the amounts into different accounts is also
evidently not available on record. The allegation relating to
the receipt of payments to the petitioners account from the
account of the accused number 16 alone cannot constitute
an offence. Investing the said amount and other amounts in
a mutual fund also cannot constitute an offence. The
investigating officer could not establish the allegation of
sharing of money with Accused Nos.5 and 6 by the
petitioner in the charge sheet.
23. Listed witness 1 to 4 are the officers of Syndicate Bank.
Listed witness 5 and 6 are the employees of the welfare
board, Hyderabad. Listed witness 7 to 9 are the employees
of Syndicate Bank, listed witness number 10 is the Assistant
General Manager of Indian Bank, listed witness No.11 is the
branch manager of State Bank of Mysore listed , Listed
Witness number 12 and 13 are the Managers the
Corporation Bank. Listed witness number 14, 21, 26, 35, 36,
37 and 38 are other witnesses unrelated tot eh bank and
also unrelated to the Airport Authority of India or the Oil
//16//
CRLP 2275 OF 2024
Companies, rest of all others are officers of various banks.
On careful perusal of all the listed witnesses and their
statements recorded by the investigating officer none of the
witnesses have spoken about the involvement of the
petitioner in the Commission of the alleged offenses.
Evidently the investigating officer has not conducted
investigation on the veracity of the documents submitted by
the petitioner to the investigating officer along with a
covering letter dated 09.08.2016.
24. In absence of any cogent evidence or any other form of
evidence which could prima- facie point the finger of
suspicion towards the petitioner, continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the petitioner would have to be
considered as illegal.
25. In absence of any evidence, a mere vague statement in the
charge sheet against the petitioner without any
corroborative evidence either in the form of a document or in
the form of a statement recorded by the investigating officer
continuation of the criminal proceedings against the
petitioner would only cause unwanted harassment to the
petitioner.
//17//
CRLP 2275 OF 2024
26. In absence of any material to prima facie link the petitioner
with the commission of the alleged offences, this court is of
the considered view that the petition deserves to be allowed
and the proceedings against the petitioner deserve to be
quashed.
27. Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed and CC.No.1107 of
2023 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge – Cum – V
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada against the
petitioner is hereby quashed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
___________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
24.04.2025
LR Copy to be marked
B/o.KGM
//18//
CRLP 2275 OF 2024
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
CRLP.No.2275 of 2024
24.04.2025
KGM