Dismissed

M.Manimaran v. State Rep by

Madras HC11 Apr 2022CRL OP/7930/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. The petitioner sought direction to register a corruption complaint alleging loss to the Government due to unauthorized industrial licenses granted by government officials. The court rejected the plea because the petitioner failed to produce evidence showing the complaint was actually sent to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

The petition to direct the respondent to register the complaint dated 09.06.2020 was dismissed.

M.Manimaran Vs State Rep by — Corruption | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.04.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.7930 of 2022

M.Manimaran

Vs.

State:

Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anticorruption, No.271, M.G.Road, Muthialpet, Puducherry – 605003. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondent to register the complaint dated 09.06.2020.

¶11

For Petitioner : Ms.H.Mubena Almas For Respondent : Mr.V.Balamurugane Public Prosecutor, Puducherry.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to direct the respondent to register the complaint dated 09.06.2020.

¶14

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she preferred a complaint dated 09.06.2020 to the respondent with regard to the corruption charges against 1) Mr.Jayakumar, the Commissioner of Mannadipet Commune Panchayath, Thirubuvanai, Puducherry and 2)Mr.Anbazhagan, Assistant to the Commissioner of Mannadipet Commune Panchayath, Thirubuvanai.

¶15

3.It is alleged that both these persons had caused wrongly loss to the Government of Puducherry by their corrupt activities in granting license to the industries. They had shown the list of only 33 industries in their jurisdiction, though there are lot of industries functioning. Therefore, a complaint was given to the respondent, but no action was taken on the basis of her complaint dated 09.06.2020. Therefore this petition.

¶16

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

¶17

4.When the matter is taken up, the learned Public Prosecutor, Puducherry submitted that the respondent had not received any complaint dated 09.06.2020 from the petitioner nor any information was sought under the RTI Act and information furnished.

¶18

5.A perusal of the typedset of papers shows that the complainant had only sent the complaint to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Secretariat, Puducherry on 09.06.2020, making allegations against the aforesaid persons. There is no material produced to show that the complaint was sent to the respondent. Therefore, in the absence of any complaint dated 09.06.2020 sent to the respondent, the petitioner cannot seek a direction to the respondent to register the complaint dated 09.06.2020.

¶19

6.In this view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in this petition and this petition is dismissed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar (CS-VI)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

sli

¶25

¶26

1.The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anticorruption, No.271, M.G.Road, Muthialpet, Puducherry – 605003.

¶27

2.The Public Prosecutor , Puducherry.

¶28

+2ccs to M/s.H.Mubena Almas, Advocate SR. No. 25007

¶29

CRL.O.P.No.7930 of 2022

¶30

RK (CO) PR (29/04/2022)

¶31

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

M.Manimaran v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Manimaran v. State Rep by

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

Saradha Ammal Vs J.Sridhar

K.Kalaikovan, Mba, B.L., Vs the Director General of Police

Mr.Ayyampalayam Venkatesan Arun, Liquidator for Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. Vs a.Subramanian

M/S.Mohan Breweries and Vs the State Bank of Hyderabad

State Rep. by Vs Tr.P.Madhesan, Male Aged

P.B.Edwin Prabakar Vs the State Rep.by