The court can quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the court process and to secure the ends of justice, especially in the absence of direct evidence and when witnesses turn hostile.

1. The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner / first accused in Crime No.3/AC/2010 on the file of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department / first respondent herein.

2. The averments in the First Information Report are as follows:-

On 12.07.2010, at around 08.00 a.m., the defacto-complainant namely, K.Shanmugam S/o Kandasamy, teacher of T.Nallakoundam Palyam lodged a complaint against the petitioner / first accused and second accused namely, Subramanian, stating that the petitioner / first accused had demanded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for doing a favour to him. The F.I.R. further disclosed that there was a dispute amongst one Mr.Sheik Navith, one Mr.Veeramalai, Ex.Village President, Valliampatti, Mr.Kailasam of Namakkal, one Mr.Arokiaraj, Nagappattinam and one Mr.Balaguru, Deputy Secretary, Karur District regarding poultry farm, which is situated at Seviturengampatti. Regarding the said dispute, a Criminal Case was registered in Crime No.342 of 2010, dated 07.07.2010, for an alleged offence under Section 506(2) and 406 of Indian Penal Code, on the file of Mohanur Police Station, against Mr.Sheik Navith and the defacto complainant, Mr.K.Shanmugam and one Ravi. For resolving this issue, the Ex.Valliampatti Village President, Mr.Veeramalai spoke with the Inspector of Police, who was the Investigation Officer attached to the Mohanur Police Station. He, in turn, asked the defacto complainant to meet the Deputy Superintendent of Police, i.e., the petitioner herein, to sort out the issue. On his instructions, the defacto complainant, one Mr.Balaji, a Councilor and Ex.Alanganattan Village President, Mr.Vijayakumar, went to the petitioner's office, Namakkal. The petitioner told the defacto complainant to come along with Sheik Navith and also pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to one Subramani, who is the second accused in the said case. Out of this amount, Rs.50,000/- was to be paid to the petitioner through the second petitioner (second accused). The amount of Rs.50,000/-was paid on 09.07.2010 at around 07.30 p.m., by one Mr.Selvam, who is the friend of the defacto complainant. On that day, the defacto complainant was at Chennai to move an anticipatory bail before this Hon'ble Court.

3. Aggrieved by the said criminal case in Crime No.3/AC/2010 u/s 7 & 12 of PC Act 1988 and Sec.7/12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988, now on the file of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Namakkal, the petitioner has filed the above petition to quash the same.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various grounds in the quash petition and also submitted written arguments and citations in support of his case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has an unblemished service record in his 37 years of service. He has received 245 rewards from from the State Government including Uthamar Gandhi medal and Hon'ble Chief Minister's gold medal for excellent investigation and service. The learned counsel has raised the following legal rounds:-

(i) The petitioner begs to submit that he has been working in the Police Department from 15.04.1974 and he has completed 37 years of unblemished service in the Department. Throughout his service he discharged his duties without any adverse remarks. Often the superiors in the Department appreciated his service. Appreciating his service he was conferred to 245 rewards by the Government of Tamilnadu including ‘Uthamar Gandhi Medal’ and ‘Chief Minster's Gold Medal’ for excellent investigation and honest service. He never obtained any Memo for misconduct or indiscipline throughout his career. Further he never obtained any illegal remuneration or gratification at any point of time. He has not even received any memo from the Department. Presently he is working as Deputy Superintendent of Police of Namakkal Sub-Division (now he is under suspension).

(ii) It is submitted that under the petitioner's direction a case