Disposed

A.Thangapandian, M/a 57 Years, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Jun 2018CRL OP/11794/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a Criminal Original Petition seeking quashal of an FIR under Section 13(1)(e) Prevention of Corruption Act, observing the investigation officer must scrupulously follow vigilance manuals and allow the accused to defend allegations of wealth.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition disposed of; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed; no quashal granted.

A.Thangapandian, M/a 57 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police — Corruption | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 06.06.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.11794 of 2018 & Crl.M.P.No.6196 of 2018

¶6

A.Thangapandian ... Petitioner Vs.

¶7

The Inspector of Police, Special Investigation Cell, Anti Corruption Department, Chennai 600 106. ... Respondent

¶8

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.7/2016/AC/HQ on the file of the respondent.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Venkataraman, SC For M/s. V.Krishnakumar

¶10

For Respondent : Mr. K.Prabakar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.7/2016/AC/HQ on the file of the respondent.

¶13

2 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the FIR is a handy work of brother-in-law by name K.Jagadeesh who has earlier made an attempt for registering a case against this petitioner and approached this Court, however, failed. This Court by an order dated 26.06.2015 had dismissed the said petition. However, the respondent/appellant had registered suo-motu FIR with the same ingredient on 31.08.2016. This FIR does not disclose the earlier proceedings between the adversary and the petitioner. The FIR suffers with suppression of facts, so further proceedings should be quashed. If it is allowed to continue, it will amount to abuse of process of law.

¶14

3 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that independent of the complaint made by the said K.Jagadeesh, materials were available with the respondent and the outcome of preliminary enquiry commenced in the year 2013 it is now

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

culminated by the registration of FIR on 31.06.2016. Therefore, there is no suppression of material facts or illegality on registration of FIR. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the investigation is going on, every opportunity will be provided to the petitioner herein before filing the final report and all the facts about the earlier proceedings between the petitioner and his rival will be taken note of.

¶17

4 Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is suffice to say that FIR being registered for the alleged offence under Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, the investigation officer has to scrupulously followed the vigilance manual, while investigating the case. Fair opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to put forth his defence and explanation of the wealth alleged to have possess by him. With these observations, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpl
To
1 The Inspector of Police,
Special Investigation Cell,
Anti Corruption Department,
Chennai 600 106.
2 The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+2 ccs to Mr.S.Ravee kumar Advocate sr 35121

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.11794 of 2018 aa14/06/2018

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

A.Thangapandian, M/a 57 Years, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Thangapandian, M/a 57 Years, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kasinathan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

M.Umapathy Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Baskaran, Aged 52 Years Vs the State Rep. by

R.Marimuthu, Vs the Union of India

V. Ramasamy Vs M. Ranganathan

State Rep Dy. Supdt. of Police Vs Mr.v.Sathyamoorthy