This common order dismisses multiple writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution as infructuous because the main criminal cases against the petitioners had already been quashed, making further proceedings unnecessary.
Connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.09.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.Nos.28798, 28800, 29133 of 2013, 2065 and 2066 of 2015 and WMP Nos.10210,10212 and 10216 of 2019
W.P.No.28798 of 2013
M.S.Jaffer Sait S/o.Tr.Syed Mohammed Formerly Additional Director General of Police Intelligence, Chennai Special Officer (under suspension) Refugee camp, No.363, Sethu Nagar Mandapam, Ramnad District.
...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Union of India Rep.by the Secretary to The Ministry of Home Affairs North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2.The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Rep.by the deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Chennai City-I Detachment Chennai 600 028.
3.The Secretary to Government of Tamil nadu Home Department Fort St.George, Chennai-09.
...Respondents
(R3 – impleaded as per order dt.24.1.2015 by VDPJ in Mps.2,2,2,2 & 2 of 2013 in WPs.28798 & 28801 and WP.No.29133 of 2013).
2
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned summons dated 8.10.2013, issued by the learned Special Judge for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Chennai in C.C.No.25 of 2013 in Cr.No.7/2011/AC/CC-I, quash the same and consequentially forbear the 2nd respondent from proceeding with the prosecution in C.C.No.25/2013, pending on the files of the Special Judge for Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Chennai, without obtaining the statutory sanction for prosecution from the 1st respondent under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
For Petitioner : Mr.Aamina Jawahira for M/s.Ahmed Associates For respondents : Mr.Su.Srinivasan ASGI for R1
Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor for R2 and R3
COMMON ORDER
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all these writ petitions have become infructuous since the main case against the petitioners have been quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
27.09.2023
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kp
3
To
4
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. kp
W.P.Nos.28798,28800,29133/2013, 2065 and 2066 of 2015 and WMP Nos.10210,10212 and 10216 of 2019
27.09.2023
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petitions seeking quashing of summons and prosecution without statutory sanction are maintainable when the main case has been quashed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.S.Jaffer Sait
The Union of India
N. Anand Venkatesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
