Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.NIRMAL KUMAR
M.Rajaboopathi – Appellant
Versus
State rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption – Respondent
ORDER :
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
1. This Court on 17.12.2025 had passed the following order:
“On an earlier occasion i.e. 10.12.2025, this Court passed the following order:
“The petitioner/accused A2 in Spl.C.C.No.9 of 2020 facing trial for offences under Section 120 B, 409, 420, 465, 468, 182, 471 and 477 A IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has filed this quash application.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a Research Scholar under A1, who was his guide. A1 is a Professor and Head of the Department of Physics/Principal Investigator, DST, DRDO and UGC projects, Periyar University, Salem District during the period from 01.12.2004 to 23.07.2020. The petitioner was DRDO Research Scholar, Periyar University, Salem, during the period from 19.11.2009 to 31.08.2012.
3.The case against the petitioner is that the petitioner had made entries in the registers of the university without receipt of chemicals and other articles in the University and thereby, abetted A1 to make a claim of Rs.3,29,381/-. As regards the petitioner, the petitioner is said to have written bills to the tune of Rs.1,85,735/-. With regard to the
The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of forgery or misappropriation against the petitioner, leading to the quashing of all proceedings.
The absence of evidence proving demand for illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act led to the quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
At the stage of framing charges, the court is required to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed, without delving into the probative value of the materia....
The court emphasized that the power to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and only in the rarest of rare cases, and that the court will not be justifie....
The court considered the satisfaction of the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA and the triple test under Section 439 of Cr.PC, as well as the larger interest of the public and the State, and t....
The court established that prior approval is mandatory for investigating public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act when the alleged offenses relate to their official duties, and failure ....
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
