Single-judge Madras High Court dismissed a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC regarding an alleged corruption case involving irregular Grama Housing Patta recommendations. The Court held that delay does not justify interfering with the ongoing investigation, leaving the decision to the investigating officer.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 13.04.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P.No.10825 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.5535 of 2018
L.Babu ... Petitioner
Vs. 1 State by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District. 2 N.Ravichandran ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the entire records concerned in Cr.No.3 of 2017 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr. C.Prakasam For R1 : Mr. K.Prabakar Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER
Petition is filed by the second accused to quash the First Information Report registered against him for an offence under Section 120(B) IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
2 The petitioner is a Revenue Inspector of Ugayanur village, Tiruppur South. The First Information Report reveals that when there was scheme for issuance of Grama Housing Patta to the landless citizen during the year 2009, the petitioner herein, being the Revenue Inspector of concerned village, in connivance with the Panchayat President, has recommended names of six persons, who already owned land.
3 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for the incident that took place in the year 2009, where the petitioner only forwarded the recommendation of the Village Administrative Officer based on the resolution of the Panchayat, a complaint was filed in the year 2015 and after preliminary
enquiry, FIR has been registered on 27.06.2017. So, considering the delay and the minimum role played by the petitioner, who merely forwarded the recommendation of the Village Administrative Officer, will not cast upon him any criminal liability.
4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the report of the petitioner herein with the incorrect statements favouring the close-relatives of A1, had misled the Tahsildar to grant patta and only after sustained preliminary enquiry FIR has been registered. It was only in the year 2015, the crime came to light based on the complaint of one Deivasigamani. Since, the investigation prima facie indicates the role of the petitioner herein, initiation of prosecution against the petitioner is legal.
5 This is not an appropriate case to interfere with the investigation merely on the ground of delay. It is for the Investigation Officer independently to conclude his investigation and file a final report within a reasonable time. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rpl To 1 The The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
Crl.O.P.No.10825 of 2018 GMI(CO)
RRK(15/05/2018)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal original petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR was maintainable despite delay in filing.
Whether mere delay in filing FIR bars the Court from interfering with the investigation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
L. Babu
State by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tiruppur
N. Ravichandran
DR. Justice G. Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
