Dismissed

K.Abdul Razak v. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep

Madras HC12 Apr 2023WP/34634/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single bench dismissed nine writ petitions filed under Article 226 challenging an FIR No.11 of 2004 under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court held the petitions were not entertainable as grounds to quash a criminal case against holding employees could not be adjudicated here, and allowed over 19 years to lapse before filing.

What did the court decide?

All nine writ petitions were dismissed; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

K.Abdul Razak Vs the State of Tamilnadu, Rep — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.Nos.34634of 2004... batch

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.Nos.34634, 34635, 34636, 34637, 34638, 34639, 34640, 34641 & 34642 of 2004 and W.M.P.Nos.41815, 41817, 41819 & 41823 of 2004

¶7

W.P.No.34634 of 2004:

K.Abdul Razak

...Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The State of Tamil nadu

¶12

Represented by Secretary to Govt. Commercial Taxes Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-09.

¶13

2.The Principal Commissioner & Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai-05.

¶14

3.The Director,

¶15

Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Department, Chennai.

¶16

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Department, Madurai.

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

1/6

¶19

...Respondents

¶20

W.P.Nos.34634of 2004... batch

¶21

Prayer:-

¶22

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records comprised in proceedings of the fourth respondent in FIR No.11/2004 on the file of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Department, Madurai, quash the same in so far as it relates to the petitioner and consequently forbear the respondents 3 & 4 and those functioning under them in any manner interfering with the personal liberty of the petitioner by taking any action on the basis of the Fir registered in No.11 of 2004 on the file of the fourth respondent including by way of arrest, detention or execution of any order of any Court.

¶23

For Petitioners in all 9 WPs. : Mr.Mohammed Shari For Respondents in all 9 WPs. : Mr.S.Ravichandran, AGP

¶24

COMMON ORDER

¶25

The writ petitions have been filed to quash the FIR No.11 of 2004

¶26

on the file of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Madurai, to forbear the respondents 3 and 4 and those functioning under them in any manner interfering with the personal liberty of the petitioners.

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

2/6

¶29

W.P.Nos.34634of 2004... batch

¶30

2.The petitioner in W.P.No.34634/2004 was working as an Assistant

¶31

Commissioner (Commercial Tax) and a Criminal case was registered against the petitioner by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioners in the writ petitions raise various grounds for the purpose of quashing the FIR registered against them under the Prevention of Corruption Act in FIR No.11 of 2004.

¶32

3.The grounds raised in the writ proceedings cannot be adjudicated for the purpose of quashing the criminal case registered against the writ petitioners under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The writ petitions itself are not entertainable since the relief as such sought to prevent the authorities from initiating action against the writ petitioners who were holding the posts in Commercial Tax cannot be granted.

¶33

4.That apart, the writ petitions were filed in the year 2004 and more than 19 years lapsed. In respect of the other writ petition filed by one

¶34

Mr.P.Devanathan in W.P.No.34644 of 2004, the writ petition was dismissed and he preferred a Writ Appeal No.840 to 843 of 2005, and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court disposed of the appeal as infructuous since the action was dropped the against the said Mr.P.Devanathan. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶35

W.P.Nos.34634of 2004... batch

¶36

5.As far as the petitioners herein are concerned, almost 19 years

¶37

lapsed and therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed at this length of time and it is for the petitioners to defend their case in the manner known to law.

¶38

6.With these observations, all the nine writ petitions stand dismissed . However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶39

(sha) Index : Yes Speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes

¶40

12.04.2023

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

4/6

¶43

W.P.Nos.34634of 2004... batch

¶44

¶45

1.The State of Tamil nadu Represented by Secretary to Govt. Commercial Taxes Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-09.

¶46

2.The Principal Commissioner & Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai-05.

¶47

3.The Director,

¶48

Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Department, Chennai.

¶49

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Department, Madurai.

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

5/6

¶52

W.P.Nos.34634of 2004... batch

¶53

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM. J.,

¶54

(sha)

¶55

W.P.Nos.34634, 34635, 34636, 34637, 34638, 34639, 34640, 34641 & 34642 of 2004

¶56

12.04.2023

¶57

6/6

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.Abdul Razak v. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Abdul Razak v. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep

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

E.Ramasamy Vs Secretary to Government

Agaram Loco Works Slum Clearan Vs Slum Clearance Board, Rep by

Mrs. M.Chandra, Vs The Managing Director-cum-

The State of Tamilnadu Vs The Principal and Secretary

S.Mayilathal Vs The Additional District

K.R.Suryakumar Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu