The court affirmed that the absence of a preliminary inquiry does not invalidate an FIR in corruption cases, emphasizing that sufficient prima facie evidence warranted the continuance of prosecution.

ORDER :

(P. VELMURUGAN, J.)

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.39 of 2020 in Crime No.478 of 2019, pending before the Additional Special Court for Trial of Cases related to Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamilnadu.

2 Based on the complaint given by the third respondent/defacto complainant, a case in Cr.No.478 of 2019 has been registered against the petitioners herein for the offence under Sections 420 , 464, 465, 466, 468 r/w 120-B of IPC and subsequently the complaint was transferred to CB CID for completion of investigation and the same was registered in Cr.No.1 of 2019. It is the case of the prosecution that the first petitioner was serving as Ward Councilor from 1996-2011, as ward and zonal councilor from 2001 to 2006 and from 2006 to 2011 as Mayor of Chennai Corporation. In the year 1995 first petitioner purchased Labour Tenement No.4 in the name of his wife/A2, the second petitioner herein from the original allottee one S.K.Kannan, which was allotted by TANSIDCO, for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.2.30 lakhs knowing fully well that the property belongs to TANSIDCO. In the year 1997, when the Government issued an order for transfer of ownerships and when TANSIDCO started processing applications for issue of sale deeds, A1 and A2 conspired together and produced an application on 30.05.1997 to the Project Officer/Branch Manager TANSIDCO signed by S.K.Kannan original allottee, wherein A2 the second petitioner was shown as daughter of S.K.Kannan. The application was given enclosing a copy of family card of the first accused issued for the year 1993-1998, in which S.K.Kannan was shown as father-in-law of A1 and subsequently the same was processed by TANSIDCO and a demand notice dated 27.02.1998 was issued in the name of A2 for collection of rental dues, water charges, cost of tenement and maintenance charges all amount to Rs.28,827/-and in the year 1998 in order to legalize the occupancy. To grab the property of TANSIDCO, A1 obtained an affidavit from S.K.Kannan and produced the said document for transfer of Labour Tenement No.4 in the name of A2 and thereby committed an offence under Section 420 r/w 120B IPC. In continuation of the said offence, A1 and A2 entered into conspiracy, due to which, S.K.Kannan made a request to TANSIDCO to transfer the allotment of Labour Tenement No.4 in favour of A2 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 468 IPC. Further, in continuation of the demand notice issued by TANSIDCO, A1 and A2 have obtained various services from Government Department and committed offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. During the year 2006-2011, when A1 was Mayor of Chennai Corporation, he abused his official position and got the property tax for Labour tenement No.4 assessed in the name of A2 and paid property tax to the tune of Rs.11,725/- on 20.04.2007 and obtained four EB connections in the name of A2 between 2006-2009 and regularized his unauthorized occupation in Labour Tenement and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d)(i)(ii) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

3 After completing investigation, the respondent police filed a charge sheet before the learned Additional Special Judge for Trial of Cases related to Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamilnadu, which was taken on file in C.C.No.39 of 2020. The said case is pending at the stage of 'framing of charges'. Now the petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the above case.

4 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the third respondent, backed by political opponent belonging to AIADMK party, who has lost the 2016 Assembly elections against the first petitioner has been knocking on the doors of this Court by way of various frivolous petitions and it is very clear that the entire criminal case is a foisted one with the blessing of the then ruling party at the time of complaint, misusing