The court ruled that quash petitions cannot resolve factual disputes, and allegations of bribery against a public servant must be assessed within the framework of a complete trial.

ORDER :

1. The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2023, pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruppur.

2. This Court, on 14.03.2025, had passed the following order:

“1. The petitioner/accused, who is facing trial in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2023 for offence under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , had filed this quash petition.

2. The case projected against the petitioner is that the de-facto complainant/decoy, Mr.K.Rajendran, S/o.Karupanadevar, K.N.P.Subramania Nagar, T.C.Market Post, Tiruppur District is a business man. The de-facto complainant's father purchased 2.18 acres of land on an instalment basis in Ponnapuram village in S.F.No.869/1B under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Rules on 17.11.1978 as condition patta with a condition that the land shall not be sold or otherwise alienated before the expiry of ten years from the date of assignment or before the payment of the value of the land, buildings and trees thereon in full, whichever is later. The de-facto complainant's father Karupanadevar paid all the payments and he died on 06.05.2018. The de-facto complainant's mother Lakshmi also passed away on 26.10.2016. On 10.08.2021, the de-facto complainant applied for changing condition patta, which stood in the name of his father into Ayan patta. For transferring the same, he approached Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Dharapuram. The application given by the de-facto complainant has to be verified by the RDO, Dharapuram after getting report from Tahsildar, Dharapuram. The petitioner/accused is a Senior Revenue Inspector/Assistant in the office of the RDO. On 10.08.2021, the de- facto complainant submitted an application along with documents before one Tmt.Krishnaveni, PA to RDO, Dharapuram. After verification done by VAO of Ponnapuram village and Tahsildar, Dharapuram, report was sent to RDO, Dharapuram. Thereafter, on 04.03.2022 the de-facto complainant was called for enquiry and his statement was recorded before the RDO. On 09.03.2022, the de-facto complainant approached the PA to RDO, who instructed him to contact the petitioner, who was looking after the file and the petitioner instructed the de-facto complainant to appear on 11.03.2022 for RDO enquiry. On that day the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as illegal gratification for processing the file quickly.

3. On 21.03.2022 the de-facto complainant called the petitioner from his mobile No.9788333955 to the petitioner’s mobile No.9444492040 and thereafter the demand of Rs.50,000/- reduced by Rs.5,000/- and he was asked to pay Rs.45,000/- and later the demand was reduced to Rs.25,000/-. On 25.03.2022, between 15.05 hours to 15.15 hours the de-facto complainant met the petitioner along with the official witness Mr.karthik and requested for the copy of the patta. At that time it was informed that RDO already signed in one file and he has to put his signature in the order which was kept ready, since the RDO has gone for meeting at Tiruppur Collectorate, after his arrival, signature would be obtained. Further he reiterated his earlier demand, the de-facto complainant was ready to pay the amount and the petitioner asked one Kannusamy, part time watchman to collect money on his behalf. The said Kannusamy came to the two wheeler stand, collected the money and went inside the office. Thereafter, trap team entered and confirmed the Kannusamy receiving bribe amount and thereafter, the accused was arrested.

4. The primary contention of the petitioner is that as per Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Government Office Manual, the office copies and fair copies to be typed together when possible. In this case, the explanation given is that file has been signed on 06.04.2022 by the RDO, but it is not so. The petitioner obtained office copy order by RTI in which it is seen that