The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a hotel employee accused in a Rs. 50.93 lakh misappropriation case, holding that in the absence of any specific allegation or prima facie material connecting him with the alleged offences making him face trial would amount to an abuse of the process of law. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 136]

Section 408 IPC deals with criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant entrusted with property, while Section 120B IPC punishes criminal conspiracy.

The Court held that the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 408 and 120B IPC were not satisfied, as the material on record did not disclose entrustment of property or the petitioner's involvement in any conspiracy.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed that the statements of material witnesses and the charge sheet did not attribute any specific role to the petitioner, who was working as a hotel boy. The Court held:

"Neither the statements of the material witnesses nor the charge sheet does reveal any specific overt-act as against the petitioner herein, nor any prima facie material is collected against him during the course of investigation, connecting him to the offences alleged.

All the allegations are directed as against A.1 to A.4. Except a vague and bald averment in the statement of L.W.4-K.Siva Sankar Reddy, there is no specific role attributed as against the petitioner. Basing on the said bald averment, the petitioner herein is arrayed as an accused in the charge sheet.

On aperusal of the statements of the witnesses goes to show that the General Manager of the said hotel and others have collected money. But, nowhere, it is alleged that the petitioner collected the money from the customers. In the absence of any specific accusations as against the petitioner, it is nothing but abuse of process of law in making him to face the ordeal of trail."

The case arose from a petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by Accused No.5 seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 408 and 120B IPC. According to the prosecution, employees of Hotel Sindhuri had colluded by using duplicate receipt books to misappropriate customer payments, causing a loss of Rs. 50.93 lakh to the hotel.

The petitioner, however, claimed that he was merely working as a hotel boy and had no role in collecting money from customers or handling the financial affairs of the hotel. He contended that even if the allegations in the complaint, witness statements and charge sheet were accepted, there was no material connecting him with the alleged offences.

Opposing the petition, the complainant argued that all the accused had acted together in misappropriating the hotel's funds and that the truthfulness of the allegations could only be determined during trial.

Examining the material on record, the High Court noted that the allegations of collecting and misappropriating hotel funds were directed only against Accused Nos.1 to 4, who were entrusted with the hotel's financial responsibilities. It observed that neither the witness statements nor the charge sheet referred to the petitioner (Accused No.5) or attributed any specific role or overt act to him.

The only allegation against him was a vague statement by one witness alleging a conspiracy, which, the Court held, was insufficient to array him as an accused.

Accordingly, the High Court held that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner and allowed the criminal petition, quashing the proceedings against him.

Case Title: Guduru Uma Maheswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 5730 of 2020

Counsel for Petitioner: Sri Srinivasa Rao Narra

Counsel for Respondents: Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 136