Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
B. Dharmaraj - Appellant
Versus
The State by:The Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri - Respondent
Crl.O.P. No. 23301 of 2021 & Crl.M.P. No. 12770 of 2021
Decided On : 08-08-2022
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Sections 7, 12, 13(2), 13(1)(d), 190 I.P.C - The court discussed the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and the Indian Penal Code, and the demand of illegal gratification by a public servant, and the abetment of such offence by a private individual. The court highlighted the inordinate delay in bringing the complaint and initiating criminal proceedings, the non-application of mind by the District Collector in granting sanction for prosecution, and the fabrication of false complaints to stall the petitioner's promotion as a Deputy Collector.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Tahsildar, was falsely accused of demanding and accepting bribes in connection with the issuance of a quarry license. The petitioner contended that the complaints were fabricated to prevent his promotion as a Sub-Collector, and highlighted the inordinate delay in bringing the complaint and initiating criminal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was an inordinate delay in bringing the complaint and initiating criminal proceedings, and that the complaints were fabricated to stall the petitioner's promotion. The court also held that there was non-application of mind by the District Collector in granting sanction for prosecution.
Issues: The issues included the inordinate delay in bringing the complaint, the fabrication of false complaints, and the non-application of mind by the District Collector in granting sanction for prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the continuation of the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process of law, and that the petitioner had made out a case of victimization in the name of a vigilance case.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to quash the final report in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2019, on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri.)
1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the first accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashment of Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2019, on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri.
2. The respondent-police has filed a final report in Crime No.1/AC/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and read with 190 I.P.C alleging that;
a) The accused (A-1) B.Dharmaraj was formerly working as Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Harur, Dharmapuri District, during the period from 03.02.2014 to 28.05.2014. He is a public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
b) The accused (A-2) R.Murali, is an Ex-Serviceman and was formerly working temporarily as Jeep Driver to A-1 during the period from March 2012 to October 2018 and he is a private individual.
c) The defacto complainant K.Lakshmanan presented his application seeking quarry license to P.Saravanan, Deputy Director of Mines and Minerals, Dharmapuri on 10.01.2014 for installing a Gravel Crusher in the name of "Sri Amman Blue Metals" at Ganapathypatti Revenue Village in S.F.Nos.2/5F, 3/3B, 4/2B and 4/3 in Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District.
d) The application was forwarded to A1 by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Harur for verification. On receipt of the application, A1 directed Kathiravan, Village Administrative Officer of Kil Morappur Revenue Village to come to the place where the crusher has to be installed along with relevant revenue records on 25.02.2014.
e) On 25.02.2014, A1 along with A2 came to the field of defacto complainant for inspection at about 16.00 hrs by Jeep bearing Registration No.TN 29 G 0653. At that time, witnesses K.Sivalingam and K.Ponmalai who are the owners of agricultural land adjacent to the land of K.Lakshmanan also arrived there. At that time, A1 demanded Rs.60,000/- as gratification other than legal remuneration from the defacto complainant as motive for sending up his report with recommendation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Harur.
f) When the defacto complainant expressed his inability of arranging such huge money, A1 directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as advance amount for the time being and instructed him to pay the balance amount of Rs.55,000/- later and A1 directed the defacto complainant to give the bribe amount to A2 . When the defacto complainant gave a sum of Rs.5,000/- to A2, he accepted the same on behalf of A1 and additionally demanded Rs.500/- from him for himself. Accordingly, the defacto complainant gave Rs.500/- to A2 and after receipt of Rs.5000/-, A2 retained Rs.500/- for himself and gave balance amount of Rs.5000/- to A1 on the spot in the presence of witnesses, Sivalingam and Ponmalai.
g) Further, A1 insisted the defacto complainant to give the balance amount Rs.55,000/- early and then only he could forward his inspection report to higher ups. After that, Kathiravan, Village Administrative Officer and his Village Assistant Thavamani came to Sri Amman Blue Metal on 25.02.2014 at about 16.30hrs and showed the revenue records to A1 and verification was completed. Thereby A1 has committed the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and A2 Tr.Murali abetted the offence punishable under Section 7 read with 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
h) In the course of the same transaction and in furtherance of the above said demand, on 25.02.2014 at about 16.00hrs, at the site of proposed Sri Amman Blue Metals in Ganapathypatti Village, Tr.B.Dharamaraj (A1) being a public servant, by corrupt and illegal means and by abusing his official position, obtained for himself Rs.5000/- as pecuniary advantage from the defacto complainant Lakshmanan, through A2 Mura
The main legal point established in the judgment is the abuse of process of law and victimization of the petitioner in the name of a vigilance case.
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.
The court ruled that quash petitions cannot resolve factual disputes, and allegations of bribery against a public servant must be assessed within the framework of a complete trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of specific and credible evidence to establish the commission of a cognizable offence, especially in cases involving allegations of....
Court upheld the FIR alleging bribery against a public servant, emphasizing the necessity of substantial evidence for prosecution, rejecting claims of mala fides and ensuring adherence to procedural ....
The power to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and there must be factual supporting material in the FIR to fasten the accused with criminal liability.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
