SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Dr.R.Balajinathan - Petitioner
Vs
The Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai - Respondent 
Crl.OP.No.2478 of 2025 Crl.MP.Nos.1534 and 1404 of 2025
Decided On : 30-01-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.Jesubalan Raja, for Mr.A.Vinothraj
For the Respondent: Mr.A.Gopinath, GA(Crl.Side)

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 established.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7(a) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 - Criminal Original Petition filed to quash FIR against the Petitioner for alleged corruption in the inspection of Vels Medical College - Court found no prima facie case against the Petitioner, as the investigation revealed no incriminating evidence and recommended departmental action instead. (Paras 1, 2, 14, 22)

(B) Quashing of FIR - The court emphasized that criminal proceedings can be quashed if uncontroverted allegations do not establish an offence and if the chances of conviction are bleak. (Paras 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, a member of the inspection team for Vels Medical College, was accused of corruption based on a surprise inspection report that claimed the college did not meet the necessary requirements. The Petitioner argued that the FIR was based on assumptions without evidence. (Paras 3-6)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the FIR was lodged without sufficient evidence against the Petitioner and that the investigation did not substantiate the allegations. (Paras 14, 22)

Issues: Whether the FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence against the Petitioner. (Paras 20, 22)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of incriminating evidence and the recommendation for departmental action indicated that the FIR was filed without a solid basis. (Paras 14, 22)

Result: FIR quashed and Criminal Original Petition allowed.

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 Government, seeking permission to start a Medical College with an annual intake of 150 MBBS students in the name of Vels Medical College and Hospital at Velan Nagar, Manjakaranai Village, Uthukkottai Taluk, Tiruvallur District. The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, vide C.No.284/MCA- 2/2020, dated 11.03.2020, sent a letter to the Director of Medical Education, Chennai to verify the functions of the Vels Medical College and Hospital as to whether the proposed Institution fulfils the norms laid down by the National Medical Commission for starting MBBS Course with an annual intake of 150 students. Based on the said letter of the Government, the Director of Medical Education, Chennai, vide his letter in Ref.No.019528/ME2/1/ 2020, dated 11.11.2020, nominated four doctors, including the Petitioner/A4, Dr.R.Balajinathan, from the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam College, Salem to inspect as to whether the Vels Medical College and Hospital fulfils the norms laid down by the National Medical Commission. During the relevant point of time, the Petitioner/A4 was working as a Dean of the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, Salem.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that establishment of a Medical College is regulated by the Minimum Requirements for Annual MBBS Admissions Regulations, 2020. According to this regulation, there shall be a hospital that is capable of being developed into a teaching hospital with a fully functional minimum of 300 bedded one and the Hospital should be fully functional for a minimum period of two years. Hence, the Petitioner and his team members had inspected the premises of the Vels Medical College and Hospital to verify the following two aspects:-

i. To verify the functioning of blood banks, documents related to the land, operation theatres, visiting of outpatients and bed occupancy of the hospital.

ii. To verify the infrastructure facilities of the college and the minimum requirements for starting the MBBS course with an annual intake 150 students and other facilities of the college, besides the administrative staff, clinical and non clinical and nursing staff details of the hospital and college.

5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner/A4 and the other Doctors from the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam College, Salem, namely, A5, Dr.T.M.Manohar, Professor of Orthopedics, A6, Dr.Sujatha, Professor of Pathology and A7, Dr.J.A.Vasanthakumar, Professor of Medicine, had conducted the above inspection and after being satisfied, reports were submitted. For the reasons best known to the Respondent, without any direct involvement of the Petitioner and other team members, who inspected the above said Institution, the Respondent, with a mala fide intention, lodged the FIR

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top