A Sub Registrar facing a bribery trap case sought to quash the FIR on the strength of CCTV footage obtained under RTI which he claimed contradicted the demand and acceptance of bribe. The prosecution undertook to file the CCTV recordings with a 65-B certificate as part of the charge sheet. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
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.
Crl.O.P.No.18569 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.18569 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.No.10983 of 2024
C.Selvaramachandran … Petitioner/A1
Vs.
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, praying to call for the records in F.I.R. in Crime No.1/AC/2024/TVL dated 30.01.2024 on the file of the first respondent and other connected records and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.S.Pillai for Mr.K.Arunprasad
For Respondent-1 : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Crl.O.P.No.18569 of 2024
O R D E R
The petitioner/A1 in Crime No.1 of 2024 for offence under Section
7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 had filed the above quash
petition.
2 . The contention of the petitioner is that petitioner is a Sub
Registrar in R.K.Pet Sub Registrar Office, R.K.Pet Taluk, Thiruvallur
District. The prosecution projected a case against the petitioner that he demanded illegal gratification through A2/ Data Entry Operator and collected
the bribe amount on 30.01.2024. It is further projected that a sale deed was
executed on 22.01.2024 between Ayyappan and one Narasimman, who
presented the same for registration and the sale deed consideration was
mentioned as Rs.75,900/-. Since there was variation in the sale consideration
and to the value of the property, it was kept as pending document for the
purpose of spot inspection and verification. But it was projected as though the
Crl.O.P.No.18569 of 2024
petitioner demanded bribe document and for that purpose the file was kept
pending.
3 . The further contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner not
demanded, received trap amount and no recovery was made from him. On the
other hand, recovery alleged to have been made from A2 and the petitioner
has been prosecuted. He further submitted that in the SRO office CCTV
cameras available and all the happenings are recorded. Hence, the petitioner
collected CCTV recordings through RTI and produced the same to the
investigating officer and the investigation officer not considered the same.
The petitioner also informed that this CCTV recordings does not find place in
the final report. Hence, he filed the above petition.
4.The petitioner filed additional grounds, the relevant paragraphs
read as follows:
“8.It is further submitted that immediately after the
occurrence, the accuse/Al was arrested and remanded. After
Crl.O.P.No.18569 of 2024
releasing on bail the accused/petitioner obtain the CCTV footage for the relevant period under the R.T.I Act. The copy has been given on 26.06.2024. Upon perusal of the CCTV footage it is learned that the complainant was not accompanied with any witnesses and the alleged trap money was not demanded and accepted by Al the petitioner. The CCTV footage falsify the entire prosecution case.
9. It is further submitted that the copy of the CCTV
footage was also informed to the inspector of police, V and AC Tiruvallur and requested to consider at the time of investigation but the investigating officer failed to conduct and enquiry with regard to the CCTV footage either with any of, the official of S.R.Q, R.K.Pettai, Tiruvallur or with the Accused Al/petitioner.
10. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation the investigating officer also collected the CCTV footage from the S.R.O office Tiruvallur. It is further submitted that the said CCTV footage which falsifies the entire prosecution case was suppressed by the investigating officer and failed to submit the same along with the final report.”
5.The learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that the
CCTV recordings produced by the petitioner not considered by the
Crl.O.P.No.18569 of 2024
prosecution. Hence, the CCTV recordings collected through RTI may be
considered during trial.
6 . The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first
respondent refuted the petitioner's contention stating that it is only an
apprehension of the petitioner. The prosecution has been conducted in a fair
manner and whatever materials collected will be produced before the trial
Court. He further submitted that the investigating officer independently
collected CCTV recordings but the same not included in the charge sheet,
which was filed on 01.03.2025 through e-filing. He further submitted that
since the petitioner is insisting on the CCTV recordings, which is available with the prosecution, it would be filed before the trial Court and taken as part of the charge sheet along with 65-B Certificate.
7 . The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that on the
day of trap, i.e., on 30.01.2024, the petitioner was examined by one
Crl.O.P.No.18569 of 2024
K.V.Kalaiselvan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption and petitioner gave his explanation but not produced before the
trial Court. The same may also be considered.
8.The learned Government Advocate submitted that statement of
the petitioner already sent to the trial Court and the petitioner can rely on the same during trial.
9.Recording the submission of the learned Government Advocate,
this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition closed.
21.03.2025
Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral citation: Yes/No rsi
Crl.O.P.No.18569 of 2024
To:
Crl.O.P.No.18569 of 2024
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi
Crl.O.P.No.18569 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.10983 of 2024
21.03.2025
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR in the bribery trap case should be quashed on the ground that CCTV footage obtained under RTI falsifies the prosecution case.
Whether CCTV footage and the petitioner's statement collected during investigation must be included in the charge sheet and considered at trial.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
C.Selvaramachandran
State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thiruvallur
K.Jaishankar
M.NIRMAL KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
