IMPORTANT POINT
The power to quash an FIR should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, and the court should refrain from interfering in the investigation process.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the FIR in Crime No.6 of 2023 dated 02.11.2023 on the file of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District in so far as the petitioner is concerned.)

1. The petitioner/Accused No.2 in Crime No.6 of 2023 on the file of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District has filed this quash petition to quash the said FIR as against him only.

2. The brief facts of the case as follows: The first respondent/Vigilance Department received secret information about the receipt of bribe from the contractors at the time of the final settlement of bills due to them after completion of the contract work allotted to them. Therefore, they made a surprise raid on 01.11.2023 at 16.50 hours, in the Public Works Department Office, situated at Door No.1/J, Tamil Salai, Thoothukudi. During the course of the raid, the Vigilance Department, made a search in the Office and recovered a sum of Rs.2,28,000/- from one Vasudevan, who was working as Assistant in the said office ie., in the pant pocket a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- and from his Almirah a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. When the Vigilance Officer enquired about the possession of the said huge amount, he confessed that the said amount belonged to the petitioner who was the Executive Engineer and he asked to receive a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- from the contractor on his behalf and he kept the same. Further, he confessed that the petitioner handed over a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to keep it safely.

2.1. The Inspection team made a personal search of one Mr.A.L.Sundaresan, Senior Drafting Officer of the said office and a sum of Rs.14,000/- was recovered and there was no explanation for the possession of the said amount.

2.2. The Inspection team also made a search of one Murugesh Kumar, who was standing in the front side of the office and seized a sum of Rs.13,000/-.

2.3. Thereafter, the inspection team made a search of one Assistant Executive Engineer, Tmt.K.Ganga Parameshwari, and a sum of Rs.7,500/- was recovered.

2.4. The Inspection team further conducted search in the shirt pocket of one Mr.Joseph Chandrasekar, and from him a sum of Rs.25,000/- was recovered.

2.5. All the persons have not furnished any explanation for possession of the above said amount and they have not disclosed any source of the said amount. Therefore, the first respondent police recovered the said amount from all the above persons. Thereafter, the respondent police recorded the statement of various persons and registered a case for the alleged offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018, by arraying Vasudevan as Accused No.1, the petitioner as Accused No.2, A.L.Sundaresan as Accused No.3, Gangaparameshwari as Accused No.4, P.Murugeshkumar as Accused No.5 and Joseph Chandrasekar as Accused No.6.

3. Pending investigation, the petitioner filed this quash petition stating that he never handed over the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to Accused No.1/Vasudevan and he never instructed Vasudevan to receive a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- from the contractor to keep it in his custody. A false case was registered against him and on the basis of the confession of the first accused, he was arrayed as accused. He further raised the ground that he never had the habit of receiving bribe and if he had the habit of receiving bribe, he would have received bribe directly and he also stated that the respondent police received the written explanation by force from the first accused and hence, he seeks for the quashment of FIR, filed against the him. The learned counsel for the petitioner made elaborate submissions reiterating the above grounds.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that during the surprise check, huge amount was recovered from the office under suspicious circumstances. There was no proper explanation from each officer and the private persons. There