A vigilance petitions accused quashed an FIR alleging bribery. The court applied Supreme Court principles to hold that the High Court cannot interfere at the initial investigation stage and dismissed the petition.
The petition seeking quash of the FIR is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.06.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS
CRL.OP(MD) No.24264 of 2015
M.Venkatachalam ... Petitioner / Accused
-vs-
1.The State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption Wing, Pudukkoittai, Cr.No.5/2015, Pudukkottai District. ... Respondent / Complainant 2.Navaneethakrishnan ... Respondent / Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to admit the revision, to admit this quash petition on file, to call for the records in Cr.No.5 of 2015 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption Wing, Pudukottai, Pudukoittai District and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabhu
For Respondent-1: Mr.P.Kandasamy
Government Advocate (crl.side)
O R D E R
The accused in a Vigilance and Anti Corruption Case, seeks quashing of the First Information Report registered by the respondent No.1 in Crime No.5 of 2015.
3.The first respondent registered FIR No.5 of 2016 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Still the investigation is going on. At this juncture, the revision https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner seeks quashing of the First Information Report on the following grounds:-
2
i. If really the revision petitioner had demanded illegal gratification, the defacto complainant would have complained about this to his higher officials such as RDO., Collector.
ii. There is one day delay in lodging the FIR. If really the bribe was demanded, why should he wait.
iii.There was no presence of pink colour on any part of the body of the revision petitioner.
iv. It is alleged that the tainted money was found on the table drawer of the revision petitioner. It will not amount to acceptance.
v. Since the revision petitioner had seized his vehicle, the defacto complainant is motivated.
vi. There is no witness to corroborate the allegation in the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant.
4.The first respondent filed counter.
7.The principles laid down in State of Hariyana Vs. Bajanlal (AIR 1992 SC 604) particularly para 102 squarely applies to this case.
3
stage of investigation cannot be quashed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(W)
/True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
2.The Government Advocate (crl.side),
+1 cc to M/s.K.Prabhu, Advocate in SR.No.32072/16
mpk
CSL/KBM/01.07.2016 : 2p/4c
CRL.OP(MD) No.24264 of 2015 21.06.2016
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the First Information Report in a corruption case can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage of investigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana Vs. BajanlalApplied¶8
State of Hariyana Vs. Bajanlal_(AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M. Venkatachalam
The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption Wing, Pudukoittai
Navaneethakrishnan
P. Devadass
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
