S.Ravikumar, Vs State Rep by, The Inspector of Police

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.Act, to call for the entire records concerned in Spl.C.C.No. 4 of 2022 on the file of the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prevention of Corruption Act, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For R1 : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

1/7

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.18046 of 2025

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the final report in Special C.C.No.4 of 2022 on the file of the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruvallur.

¶19

The brief allegations on which the case was registered are that when the defacto complainant approached the office of Accused 1 to 4 for renewal of his dealership license, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was demanded as a bribe. Not wanting to pay the said money, a complaint was lodged and a case was registered in Crime No. 06/AC/2020/C.C. II on 08.06.2020, and a trap was set up. It is alleged that Accused 4 received the entire money of Rs. 10,000/-, based on which the investigation was completed and the charge sheet was filed.

¶20

Heard Mr. C. Prakasam , the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No. 3. A plain reading of the statement given by the defacto complainant makes it clear that the money was demanded only by A2 and was accepted by A4. Absolutely, there is no role whatsoever

¶22

2/7

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.18046 of 2025

¶25

with reference to A3. As a matter of fact, finding that the case itself is absolutely untenable, this Court has already allowed the revision petition against the dismissal of the discharge application in respect of A1 and A2. Therefore, the same order should be followed with reference to this accused also. This apart, the learned counsel would also point out that the very purpose for which the alleged demand was made was with reference to the renewal of the license, which was already renewed even before the petitioner joined the said post. Therefore, there could have been no occasion at all for the petitioner to have demanded the said sum, and hence absolutely no case is made out to proceed against this petitioner. Therefore, the final report is to be quashed.

¶26

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent, taking this Court through the final report filed and the evidence of the decoy witness (LW3), would submit that he has clearly implicated the petitioner. Therefore, when there are materials against the petitioner, the case has to proceed.

¶27

I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and

¶28

3/7

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.18046 of 2025

¶31

perused the material records of the case.

¶32

With reference to the first contention of the learned counsel appearing

¶33

for the petitioner, the following is the statement given by L.W.3 :-

¶34

“ gpd;dh; ehd;. vd;Dila Oyh; chpkk; g[Jg;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjh vd;W mwpe;J bfhs ; s Md;iydpy; bjhHpyhsh; Jiw tiyjsj;jpy; gyKiw Kaw;rpj;Jk; vdJ User Login ID Open bra;a Koatpy;iy/ gpwF 30/07/2020k; njjp khiy 05/00 kzpastpy; ehd; mk;gj;J}h;. bjhHpyhsh; mYtyfj;jpw;F nehpy; brd;W bjhHpyhsh; cjtp Ma;thsh; jpU/utp vd;giu re;jpj;J vd;Dila Oyh; chpkk; g[Jg;gpj;jy; rk;ge;jkhf nfl;nld;/ mjw;F mth; c';fs; chpkk; g[Jgpj;jy; Fwpj;J. $hd; vd;dplk; ngrpdhh;/ $hd; nfl;l gzk; U:/10.000-- bfhL' ; fs; vd;W vd;dplk; brhd;dhh;/ mjw;F ehd;. ,d;W gzk; bfhz;L tutpy;iy vd;W brd;ndd;/ mjw;F mth; rhp. jp';fl;fpHik 03/08/2020k; njjp khiy 04/00 kzpf;Fs; gzj;jij jahh; bra;J bfhz;L te;J bfhL';fs;. buhk;g ehs; Mfptpl;lJ vd;whh;/ ehDk; rhp vd;W brhy;yp tpl;L te;Jtpl;nld;/”

¶35

Therefore, it can be seen that whether the statement that is made refers to the petitioner asking for himself or for the said John, that kind of an exercise cannot be undertaken in a quash petition and it is to be decided in the trial. Prima facie, when the statement is interpreted on behalf of the prosecution to mean that the money was meant for the petitioner also, even if two views are possible, the view in favor of prosecution should prevail at the time of considering the quash application or discharge application. Therefore, I am not able to agree with the said contentions.

¶36

4/7

¶37

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

¶38

Crl.O.P.No.18046 of 2025

¶39

Similarly, that the license was already renewed and there was no occasion for A3 to have demanded the sum, etc., are all matters to be demonstrated and contested by the petitioner during the course of the trial. As far as the allowing of the revision petition for A1 and A2 is concerned, a perusal of paragraphs 4 and 5.2 of the said judgment makes it clear that the Court has discharged A1 and A2 on the footing that the allegations are against A3 and A4. Therefore, the said judgment cannot be applied to the petitioner for the purpose of quashing the case. Hence, I am unable to countenance the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶40

In view thereof, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed, keeping open the liberty of the petitioner to raise all defences during the course of the trial, including the various other findings that are made by this Court in Criminal R.C. No. 579 and 751 of 2024.

¶41

24.06.2025

¶42

Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsl

¶43

To

¶44