The court ruled that charges framed against an accused must have sufficient evidence of demand and acceptance to uphold prosecutorial validity; otherwise, it constitutes an infringement of fundamental rights against wrongful prosecution.

ORDER :

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Challenging the order passed by the learned II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.1527 of 2023 in C.C. No.2 of 2013 dated 23.11.2023 and as against the charges framed against the petitioner herein through his order dated 28.11.2013, the present Criminal Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner herein/first accused.

2. The gist and kernel of the case which leads to the filing of these revision petitions are as follows:

i) The petitioner in both the Criminal Revision Cases is the first accused in RC ME1 2001 E 0013 registered by the respondent police against him along with the other named accused persons for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B r/w 347, 384, 506 (i) of IPC and Sections 8, 10 and 13 (2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After completion of investigation, the same was taken cognizance by the learned II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Coimbatore in C.C.No.2 of 2013.

ii) The petitioner is a member of the Indian Police Service, allotted to the State of Tamil Nadu. While he was functioning as Inspector General of Police, West Zone, based at Coimbatore, a complaint was registered in Crime No.26 of 2009 by the Central Crime Branch (CCB) Tiruppur, against the Directors of Paazee Forex Trading India Ltd., under the provisions of Prize Chits and Monies Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 420 of IPC. Subsequently, Tiruppur North Police registered a case in Cr.No.3068 of 2009 for “Woman Missing” pursuant to a complaint that Mrs.Komalavalli Arumugham, one of the Directors of Paazee Forex Trading India Ltd., was found missing.

iii) Since police failed to take any action against the Directors of Paazee Forex Trading India Ltd., inspite of cancellation of the anticipatory bail to them, one of the depositors and the association of depositors of Paazee Forex Trading India Ltd., moved this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.2691 and 5358 of 2011 with a prayer for transfer of investigation from the State Police to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The petitioner was not an accused at that point of time. This Court has passed an order dated 19.04.2011 transferring the investigation of both the crimes from the State Police to CBI.

iv) In the meanwhile, the petitioner herein was interrogated in connection with Crime No.3068 of 2009 on 06.04.2011 and on investigation, it was found that he abused his official position as Inspector General of Police and inter-alia was involved in extorting money from the Directors of M/s Paazee Forex. This Court by an order dated 19.04.2011, transferred the investigation in Crime No.3 of 2010 (originally Crime No.26 of 2009) to CBI. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application for bail, which was rejected by this Court on 20.04.2012 and was arrested. The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu by an order dated 10.05.2012 placed the petitioner under suspension with effect from 02.04.2012 in terms of Sub Rule 2 of Rule 3 of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, until further orders.

v) Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.21801 of 2012 before this Court forbearing the respondents from proceeding further with conducting enquiry or investigation in FIR in RC No.13(E)/2011/CBI/EOW/Chennai and the same was dismissed by this Court. In the meanwhile, the decision to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was approved by the Disciplinary Authority on 05.04.2013. Pursuant to which, a charge memo was issued to him on 29.10.2013. This Court by an order dated 19.04.2011 i