Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr.Justice SHAMIM AHMED, J
R.Balajinathan – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fir filed against petitioner (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments against fir (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's reasoning for quashing (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
ORDER :
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
1. Heard Mr.Jesubalan Raja, assisted by Mr.A.Vinothraj, the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.A.Gopinath, the Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the Respondent.
2. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in FIR No.1 of 2022, filed under Sections 120B 420, 468, 471 of IPC read with Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the Petitioner/A4, Dr.R.Balajinathan, S/o.Ramasamy, pending on the file of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai City-V, Chennai 600016 and to quash the same. It was also prayed that any further proceedings initiated pursuant to the aforesaid First Information Report may also be quashed.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Vels Institute of Science, Technology and Advanced Studies, Pallavaram, Chennai, a Deemed University, had made an application to the Governm
The court quashed the FIR against the Petitioner due to lack of evidence and recommended departmental action instead, emphasizing that criminal proceedings can be dismissed if no prima facie case is ....
Proviso (a) to Regulation 8 (3) (1) covers admissions upto the second renewal i.e. admissions to third batch. It not restricted only to second renewal cases and covers first renewal as well.Regulatio....
The court emphasized that denial of renewal of educational permission without providing an inspection report and opportunity to rectify deficiencies violates principles of natural justice.
The court held that expert regulatory bodies' assessments of medical institutions' deficiencies are not to be overridden by the judiciary unless significant jurisdictional errors are proven.
Judicial review under Article 226 is supervisory, not appellate; courts should not substitute decisions of expert bodies unless arbitrariness or illegality is evident.
The court upheld the lawful seizure of a hospital due to unauthorized medical practices, affirming compliance with statutory procedures and the protection of public health.
A prima facie case of criminal offense exists against the petitioners, and the court's inherent powers cannot be used to quash proceedings based on uncontroverted allegations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
