Dismissed

A.Saravanan v. The State by Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Nov 2025CRL OP/31721/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash corruption proceedings and the connected miscellaneous petition. The court held that with the existence of prima facie evidence including a positive phenolphthalein test, the matter must be tried on merits.

What did the court decide?

Dismissing the quash petition and closing the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions.

A.Saravanan Vs The State by Inspector of Police — Corruption | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.31721 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20-11-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

CRL OP No. 31721 of 2025

¶7

AND

¶8

CRL MP NOS. 21887 AND 21888 OF 2025

¶9

A.Saravanan S/o.Arumugam, Residing at 38A, Sadhan Kuttai Street, Dindivanam, Villupuram.

¶10

Petitioner/A2

¶11

¶12

The State by Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Kallakurichi.

¶13

2.D.Prakash S/o.K.Devadass, No. 147, Balamurugan Kovil Street, Bongkolathur (Color) Village and Post, Dindivanam Taluk, Vilupuram District.

¶14

Respondent(s)

¶15

CRL MP No. 21887 of 2025 1. A.Saravanan

¶16

S/o.Arumugam, Residing at 38A, Sadhan Kuttai Street, Dindivanam, Villupuram.

¶17

1/9

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.31721 of 2025

¶20

Petitioner(s)

¶21

Vs 1. The State by Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Kallakurichi. 2.D.Prakash S/o.K.Devadass, No. 147, Balamurugan Kovil Street, Bongkolathur (Color) Village and Post, Dindivanam Taluk, Vilupuram District. Respondent(s) CRL MP No. 21888 of 2025 1. A.Saravanan S/o.Arumugam, Residing at 38A, Sadhan Kuttai Street, Dindivanam, Villupuram. Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State by Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Kallakurichi. 2.D.Prakash S/o.K.Devadass, No. 147, Balamurugan Kovil Street, Bongkolathur (Color) Village and Post, Dindivanam Taluk, Vilupuram District.

¶22

Respondent(s)

¶23

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying to call for the records on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court

¶24

2/9

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.31721 of 2025

¶27

for P.C. Act Cases, Villupuram and quash the proceedings in Spl.C.No.3 of 2025.

¶28

For Petitioner : Mr.V.V.Sairam

¶29

For Respondent-1 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The petitioner/A2 in Spl.C.No.3 of 2025, who is facing trial for offence under Sections 7(a) and 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, had filed this quash petition.

¶32

2.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is running a typing centre as well as document writing, 50 meters away from the Sub Registrar Office, Tindivanam. On 29.03.2022 at about 12.30 p.m. one person came and handed over cash of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner without any reason. Immediately some persons followed him claiming that they are from Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and claimed petitioner collected bribe amount of Rs.50,000/- on behalf of A1/Assistant, Incharge of Sub Registrar, Tindivanam. The petitioner has got nothing to do

¶33

3/9

¶34

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

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.31721 of 2025

¶36

with A1 and the petitioner is not aware whether A1 making any demand with the de-facto complainant/decoy in this case. He submitted that it is projected, petitioner is said to have received the amount for registration of the Document No.588/2022. In fact, this document was registered in the Sub Registrar Office at about 11.55 a.m. Hence, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶37

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petitioner's contention and submitted that the de-facto complainant's father settled the property in Survey No.80/6, a vacant plot of 7263 square feet. The de-facto complainant's father enquired with A1 with regard to the procedure, stamp duty and charges for registering the settlement deed. A1 informed about the fees and instructed him to bring demand draft on 24.03.2022 and on that day A1 demanded Rs.50,000/- as bribe and also instructed the defacto complainant's father to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- to A2 for A1. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint, preliminary enquiry conducted and the veracity of the complaint verified and it was found that petitioner acted as collection agent for A1, thereafter trap laid and the assistance of official witnesses was sought. In presence of official witnesses

¶38

4/9

¶39

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

¶40

Crl.O.P.No.31721 of 2025

¶41

pre-trap proceedings conducted, trap laid, the de-facto complainant was asked to go to the Sub Registrar Office for registration of Document. On 29.03.2022 again the demand was reiterated, which was in the presence of accompanying official witnesses. Thereafter on confirming demand of bribe amount ready the registration was accepted. The registration of the document at 11.55 a.m. was not known to the de-facto complainant. It was an internal official act and as far as the de-facto complainant is concerned his document is kept pending. Thereafter the de-facto complainant went to the Sub Registrar Office and handed over the bribe amount to A2. A2 received the same and he was unable to give any explanation for the money received. Phenolphthalein test confirmed A2 receiving amount and hence both A1 and A2 arrested. Now in this case investigation completed, charge sheet filed listing witnesses and documents. The case was taken on file in Spl.C.No.3 of 2025 on the file of Special Court for PC Act Cases, Villupuram. The points raised by the petitioner are his defence, which can be decided during trial. Prima-facie there is material to proceed against the petitioner, which is the requirement at this stage.

¶42

5/9

¶43

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

¶44

Crl.O.P.No.31721 of 2025

¶45

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submitted that in

¶46

the event of petition being dismissed, the presence of the petitioner can be dispensed with before the trial Court.

¶47

5.It is for the petitioner to file an appropriate petition before the trial Court not disputing his identity and not being the reason for delay in trial and with an undertaking that recording of evidence in his absence would not be disputed and he would cross examine the witnesses then and there. If such an undertaking is given, it is for the trial Court to decide the petitioner’s request.

¶48

6.The points raised by the petitioner are factual in nature, which are to be decided during trial. Further, this petitioner was caught red handed, phenolphthalein test confirmed the same. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition.

¶49

7.Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶50

6/9

¶51

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

¶52

Crl.O.P.No.31721 of 2025

¶53

20-11-2025

¶54

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No rsi

¶55

7/9

¶56

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

¶57

Crl.O.P.No.31721 of 2025

¶58

¶59

1.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Kallakurichi.

¶60

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶61

8/9

¶62

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

¶63

Crl.O.P.No.31721 of 2025

¶64

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶65

rsi

¶66

CRL OP No. 31721 of 2025 AND CRL MP NOS. 21887 and 21888 OF 2025

¶67

20.11.2025

¶68

9/9

¶69

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

A.Saravanan v. The State by Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Saravanan v. The State by Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Riyazudeen, Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Sivakumar Vs State represented by, The Inspector of Police

T.K. Ramalingam Vs State Represented by, the Inspector of Police

C.Sivasankaran Vs State By

Alli Rani Vs State of Tamilnadu rep by the Station House Officer

Anand Vs the Union Territory of Puducherry Rep by