Corruption necessitates thorough investigation and transparent governance to combat pervasive bribery and misadministration effectively, supported by adequate enforcement mechanisms.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to FIR in Cr.No.74/2009 dated 22.12.2009 on the file of the fourth respondent, quash the same.)

The Writ of Certiorari on hand has been instituted to quash First Information Report (F.I.R) in Crime No.74 of 2009 dated 22.12.2009.

PETITIONERS CASE:

2. It is an interesting case, where the Government employees / Police Officials between themselves raising the allegations of corruption against each other, to the huge extent. Thus, it is imminent for this Court to consider the state of affairs and the large scale corruption amongst the Public Servants visibly noticed in the public domain. Though the Constitutional Courts emphasised that the corruption will stall the developmental activities, there is no considerable improvement in the matter of controlling the corruption in our Great Nation. Thus, this Court has taken a little effort to emphasis and to create awareness with a fond hope that some steps will be taken to minimise the corruption, by all concerned.

3. The first petitioner was a Government employee. The petitioners two and three purchased a property in Sriperumpudur Village through a Sale Deed dated 17.09.2009 vide Document No.6938 of 2009 from M/s.Sri Rama Sankara Sharma alias Rama Nivasha Chari and his brother Krishna Sharma.

4. The old building in the said property was demolished during October 2009. Knowing the fact that the petitioners two and three purchased the property , the tenth respondent, who is an Advocate and the eleventh respondent, who was a Councillor of Kancheepuram Municipality and his brother demanded money from the petitioners. On 23.12.2009 at about 4:00 a.m., respondents seven, eight and ten came to the house of the petitioners. The seventh respondent / Sub-Inspector of Police informed the petitioners one and three that they should go to the District Crime Branch to answer the complaints made against them regarding the purchase of property. The first petitioner went to the District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram with his son in their car. The seventh respondent was also got into the first petitioner’s car.

Respondents eight and ten followed the petitioners in another car and came to the Police Station.

5. As soon as they reached the District Crime Branch Office, the seventh respondent / Sub-Inspector seized the cell phone belonging to the petitioner and did not permit the petitioner to seek legal assistance. He restricted the movement of their driver and commanded him not to leave the office of the District Crime Branch. The petitioner informed the seventh respondent that the property was purchased after verifying all the documents and there is no illegality in purchasing the property. He wanted the petitioners to negotiate with the tenth respondent / Advocate and settle the issues. The petitioners informed that they are not willing to enter into any negotiation with the tenth respondent. Further, the petitioners have expressed their willingness to re-transfer the property to vendors, if the sale consideration is returned.

6. After sometime, Mr.Vijayakumar, alias Vijay, who negotiated the sale transaction was brought to the Police Station. Thereafter, Neelankumari, aged 19, daughter of one of the vendors was also brought to the Police Station. She told the seventh respondent / Sub Inspector that the property was sold by her father and her uncle legally, and that both the vendors had gone to Bihar. She asserted that there was nothing illegal in the transaction. The seventh respondent threatened her with dire consequences, if she was to argue with the Police. The 7th respondent thereafter assaulted Mr.Vijayakumar, alias Vijay, sending a clear signal that they would be also dealt with similarly.

7. The first petitioner sought permission from the Police to send his driver to get money from his house. The second petitioner pledged jewels and sent Rs.1,50,000/- thr