Vanpic Project: Telangana HC Refuses To Quash Criminal Case Against Industrialist Nimagadda Prasad For Alleged Conspiracy With Jagan Reddy
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a criminal petition seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against Nimmagadda Prasad, an industrialist and key accused in the Vanpic Project case. The case, which has its roots in the politics of erstwhile united Andhra Pradesh, involves allegations of quid pro quo investments and fraudulent land allotments.The case originated from public...
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a criminal petition seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against Nimmagadda Prasad, an industrialist and key accused in the Vanpic Project case.
The case, which has its roots in the politics of erstwhile united Andhra Pradesh, involves allegations of quid pro quo investments and fraudulent land allotments.
The case originated from public interest litigations filed in 2011, alleging that businessmen and industrialists, including Prasad, had invested in companies owned by former Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy in exchange for government project allotments. Based on these allegations, the High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct an inquiry.
The CBI subsequently filed a charge sheet against 14 accused, including Prasad, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, and several government officials. The charges included criminal conspiracy, cheating, and criminal breach of trust. The allegations against Prasad were two-fold: first, that he had invested over Rs. 854 crores in Jagan Mohan Reddy's companies as a form of bribe, and second, that he had obtained the Vanpic Project and large land allotments through fraudulent means.
Prasad filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to quash the proceedings against him. His main contentions were that his investments were genuine and not bribes, that he had no role in the approval of the project's concession agreement, and that the cognizance order suffered from non-application of mind.
The High Court, however, rejected these arguments. Justice K. Lakshman, in his ruling, emphasized that the scope for quashing criminal proceedings is extremely limited. The court's role at this stage is merely to determine if the collected material and allegations make out a prima facie case, not to conduct a mini-trial or appreciate evidence.
The court held that there was indeed a prima facie case against Prasad that required a trial. It noted that the allegations were not just restricted to financial misdeeds in the Vanpic Project but also included investments in multiple companies owned by Jagan Mohan Reddy. The court found that whether these investments and subsequent project allotments were coincidental or part of a larger criminal conspiracy could only be determined during trial.
The court also rejected Prasad's contention that he could not be held liable for the company's actions, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI. It clarified that when there are specific allegations against an individual at the helm of a company, they can indeed be made an accused.
Regarding the cognizance order, the court held that a detailed reasoned order is not necessary at the stage of taking cognizance based on a police report. It found that the order sufficiently recorded that the relevant material had been perused.
While dismissing the petition, the court granted Prasad liberty to file a discharge petition before the trial court, which would be decided without being influenced by the observations made in this ruling.
Case number: Crlp 8114 of 2021
Case title: Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. State through CBI
Counsel for petitioner: T. Niranajan Reddy, senior counsel representing Mr. T. Nagarjuna Reddy
Counsel for respondent: Srinivas Kapatia, Special PP for CBI