The powers of the court to register a case under the Cr.P.C. are not compromised by the Local Bodies Ombudsman Act, reaffirming that prior court orders remain valid unless explicitly overturned.

N. SESHASAYEE, J.

1.1 These revision petitions are preferred challenging separate Orders passed by the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), Cuddalore, in Crl.M.P.No.622 of 2021 in Special C.C.No.4 of 2020. They were taken out by A3 and A2 under Sec.239 Cr.P.C.

1.2 The revision petitioners in Crl.R.C.1049 of 2024 and 1268 of 20024 respectively are the Executive Engineer of Trichy Town Panchayat and the Assistant Executive Engineer in Cuddalore Town Panchayat. The rest of the facts are:

 In 2016-2017, Thittagudi Town Panchayat, a local body in Cuddalore District had undertaken a project for laying road in Thittagudi Panchayat, where both these petitioners were entrusted with the responsibility of supervising the work.

 While so, a whistle blower preferred a complaint to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Cell alleging that the road in question ws laid with sub- standand materials. The V & AC cell in turn forwarded the complaint to the Ombudsman, constituted under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman Act, 2014. So far as the Executive Officer of the local body is concerned, the Ombudsman has found no material to proceed against him criminally, and made its recommendations accordingly. This was accepted by the Government. So far as the Assistant Engineer, is concerned, there was no complaint made.

 While so, the said complainant moved this High Court in Crl.O.P.No.14798 of 2017, wherein this Court was briefly informed about the proceedings before Ombudsman, but as a Court did not have any clarity about the stage of the proceedings before the Ombudsman, it merely directed the investigating agency, namely the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption, to register a case. The case indeed has been registered in Crime No.8 of 2017 for the offence U/s.409, 420, 477 and 471 r/w 109 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

 The investigating agency has since concluded its investigation and has laid its final report. It is right at this juncture, the petitioner had preferred Crl.M.P.No.622 of 2021 U/s.239 Cr.P.C. for discharging him.

2. Leading the arguments for the petitioners, Mr.T.Gowthaman, the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.1268 of 2024, submitted that when the legislature has passed the Local Bodies Ombudsman Act, 2014, then to bypass that Act would render the constitution of the very institution of Ombudsman redundant, and hence the investigating agency ought not to have laid its final report. He placed reliance on Anil Kumar and others Vs M.K.Aiyappa and another [ (2013) 10 SCC 705 )] and Amal Kumar Jha Vs State of Chhatisgarh & another [Crl.A.No.396 of 2016].

3. The learned Prosecutor submitted that the case came to be registered pursuant to the direction given by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.O.P. 14798 of 2017, vide Order dated 27-07-2017, and that order was not challenged, and hence it has attained finality. That which the petitioners did not choose to challenge directly, they are barred from agitating the same indirectly in a collateral proceedings, argued the learned Prosecutor.

4. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in terms of the ratio in G. Prabakaran Vs Superintendent of Police & another [ (2018) 5 CTC 623 : (2018) 2 LW (cri) 498], a Division Bench of this Court had held that the High Court in exercise of its powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. cannot direct registration of a criminal case, and that this judgement binds the learned Single Judge who passed the order in Crl. O.P.14798 of 2017. However, in directing the registration of a