The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of evidence to support allegations of corruption and wrongful gain, as well as the legality of government discretionary quota allotments and joint venture agreements.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.14 of 2019 pending on the files of the Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases Related to Elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly, Chennai and quash the same as against the petitioner.

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.14 of 2019 pending on the files of the Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases Related to Elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly, Chennai and quash the same so far as it pertains to the petitioner.)

1. The petitioners who are arrayed as A5 and A7 before the Court below in the proceedings pending in C.C.No.14 of 2019 before the Special Court for Trial of Cases of M.P. and M.L.A. Of Tamil Nadu at Chennai have filed these Crl.O.Ps., praying for quashing the proceedings pending against them.

2. The case of the prosecution is that a former employee belonging to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board gave a complaint to Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) to the effect that there was large scale illegality in the allotment of housing plots by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Based on this complaint, an F.I.R., was registered in Crime No.7 of 2011 for offences under Sections 120B, 420 and 109 of IPC, Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The sum and substance of the allegation is that during the period between 2008 and 2010, A1 to A7 had entered into a criminal conspiracy and abet one another in the commission of the offence pertaining to allotment of housing plots under the Government discretionary quota. Pursuant to the same, A1 is said to have given an application for allotment of plot and the plot was allotted in his favour. Similarly, the wife of A1 (A2) also applied for a vacant plot and she was also allotted a plot. The said A2 is also said to have entered into a joint venture agreement with A7 even before the execution of the sale deed in favour of A2 and the plot was handed over to A7 and in this transaction, A2 is said to have unlawfully gained / enriched herself. The further case of the prosecution is that A5 also made an application for allotment of plot on the guise that he is a social worker and he is said to be the son of A4 who was holding an important position during the relevant point of time and he had influenced the allotment of plot in favour of the petitioner and accordingly the plot was also allotted in favour of A5. A5 also entered into a joint venture agreement with A7 even before the execution of the sale deed. The plot was handed over to A7 and A5 had unjustly gained / enriched himself in this transaction. A3 and A4 are Government officials who are said to have misused their official position and abetted / aided the other accused persons to commit the offence. Thus, the crux of the case of the prosecution is that A1, A2 and A5 were helped by the other accused persons for allotment of plots and A2 and A5 entered into a joint venture agreement with A7 even before the sale deed was executed in their favour and the accused persons obtained wrongful gain and wrongful loss was caused to the Government. It is based on these facts, the F.I.R. came to be registered against A1 to A7.

3. The investigation was completed and final report was filed before the Court below and it was taken on file in C.C.No.14 of 2019 against seven accused persons. The proceedings have already been quashed against A1, A3 and A4. A2 filed a discharge petition before the trial Court and it was dismissed, and as against the same A2 has filed a Criminal Revision Case before this Court and the same is pending. The petitioners have been arrayed as A5 and A7 respectively.

4. Heard Mr.John Sathiyan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No