IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
T. Jayanthimala - Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by its Inspector of Police, Salem - Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 6193 of 2022 & Crl. M.P. No. 3487 of 2022
Decided On : 07-09-2022
Corruption - Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 120B, 167, 409, 420 of IPC and Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d) - G.O.Ms.No.125, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 08.10.2015 - Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Housing Scheme guidelines dated 21.01.2021
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Executive Engineer, seeks quashment of the FIR related to misappropriation of funds under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that it is premature to interfere with the ongoing investigation and dismisses the petition, directing the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption department to expedite the investigation.
Issues: The main issue is whether the petitioner's actions constitute criminal conspiracy and misconduct under the relevant sections of the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the need for a complete investigation to determine the roles and liabilities of the petitioner and other accused, based on the relevant guidelines and circulars, before any interference with the investigation.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition is dismissed, with the petitioner given liberty to challenge the investigation after substantial part of the investigation is completed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crime No.10/AC of 2021 on the file of Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Salem District and quash the same.)
1. The second accused in Cr.No.10/AC of 2021 on the file of the Inspector of Police (Vigilance and Anti Corruption) Salem, seeks quashment of the FIR qua the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is arrived as Accused No.2 in Crime No.10/AC of 2021, which was registered by Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Salem for the offences under Sections 120B, 167, 409, 420 of IPC and Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 for the occurrence took place in the year 2017 to 2019.
3. The case of the prosecution is that
(i) The petitioner is an Assistant Executive Engineer of Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Board, Salem Division and arrayed as A2. The A1 who is Executive Engineer entrusted with the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana- Housing, failed to conduct field inspection along with A2 to A4 and ascertain that all the applicants having any concrete roofed houses by their own and after confirming their eligibilities, issue work order to them. Further A2 to A4 are having the responsibilities to verify the photocopy of the title deed, family photo of the beneficiary taken in front of the existing house, undertaking of the beneficiary as per Annexure-II therein.
(ii) Accused Nos.1 to 4 hatched criminal conspiracy to misappropriate the fund, in order to execute the conspiracy that they have selected ineligible persons as beneficiaries and during the enquiry, seven beneficiaries where randomly ascertained between the period 2017 to 2018 and 2018 to 2019, without conducting any field inspection and also without verifying the genuineness of the documents enclosed with the application issued work order on various dates by violating the guidelines issued by the Government of India in G.O.Ms.No.125, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 08.10.2015.
(iii) The beneficiaries already having concrete roof houses and they are all having Permanent Account Numbers and they are not coming under the category of weaker sections of the urban society and allotted loan to seven persons to the tune of Rs.14,70,000/- and the same was misappropriated by the Accused Nos.1 to 4 and they are being public servants, committed criminal misconduct and the amount was shared among themselves. Hence, the complaint.
4. The learned Senior Advocate Mr.K.M.Vijayan would contend that as per the circular, there is nothing to suggest that the person who is already having the house are not eligible under the Central Government scheme and therefore, in the absence of any guidelines, the petitioner/A2 cannot be implicated of criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct.
5. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing on behalf of the respondent police. He has filed the status report that the investigation is on. LW1 to LW8 were so far examined, statements have been recorded and the process is further on.
6. The Central Government has launched a comprehensive mission Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban) housing for all, this mission will provide Central assistance to implementing agencies through States and UT for providing houses India urban areas formulated and guidelines for beneficiary. The main eligibility is beneficiary should belong to Economic Weaker Section and to reside within the Corporation/Municipality limits. The other conditions are as follows:
(i) Own a site with clear patta in the name of the head of the family or any other member of the household.
(ii) Do not own any other concrete house elsewhere in Tamil Nadu and does not benefited under any other housing schemes of the Government.
(iii) Those beneficiaries having a house site either assigned under the government free house sit scheme or having an ancestral house side of not more
The main legal point established is the requirement for a thorough investigation to ascertain the roles and liabilities of the accused based on the relevant legal provisions and guidelines.
Eligibility determination under PMAY-G must adhere to prescribed guidelines; reopening inquiries based on private complaints without due process undermines applicant rights and the legitimacy of the ....
The court emphasized the need to exercise inherent powers sparingly and refrain from interfering in criminal proceedings at an interlocutory stage or pending investigation.
The court should not assess the merits of the evidence at the stage of considering a Petition for quashing of the FIR under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. if the FIR makes out an offence.
The principle of parity mandates that an accused person, whose situation and allegations are not distinguishable from those of co-accused already granted discharge or quashing of proceedings, is enti....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.