Inherent jurisdiction under S. 528 BNSS (or S. 482 IPC) cannot be invoked to quash criminal proceedings if the material on record discloses a prima facie case, leaving factual disputes, contradictions, and evidentiary appreciation to be conclusively determined during a full-fledged trial.

ORDER :

L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

The present Criminal Original Petition projects a deeply disturbing narrative touching the integrity of the law-enforcement machinery itself. The allegations are not directed against an ordinary citizen, but against a police officer who, according to the prosecution, was entrusted with the solemn duty of combating serious crimes and tracing offenders. The accusation, in essence, is that the guardian of law himself became the manipulator of criminal process, the custodian of seized properties transformed into their clandestine possessor, and the protector of justice allegedly converted into its violator.

2. Simultaneously, the petitioner projects an equally serious allegation of institutional victimisation, contending that he has been selectively implicated upon fabricated narratives woven through contradictions, hearsay statements, procedural irregularities and belated allegations unsupported by legally admissible material.

3. Thus, this Court is called upon to examine whether the present prosecution deserves to be interdicted at the threshold in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., or whether the allegations disclose a prima facie case warranting a full-fledged trial.

4. This Court heard the elaborate submissions advanced on either side and meticulously perused the entire materials placed before it including the FIR, final report, sanction proceedings, witness statements, typed set of papers and written arguments.

Case of the prosecution:

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner, while serving as Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the Serious Crime Squad, Madurai District, functioned as head of a special police team engaged in tracing absconding offenders and recovering properties connected with criminal cases.

6. According to the prosecution, during the course of investigation in Kallikudi Police Station Crime No.202 of 2021 relating to counterfeit currency offences, substantial quantities of counterfeit currency notes and allied materials were seized from accused persons. However, the petitioner allegedly failed to hand over the entirety of such seized properties to the Investigating Officer and instead clandestinely retained a portion thereof. It is further alleged that the petitioner had unauthorisedly occupied a dilapidated old Sub-Inspector quarters situated behind Thirumangalam Town Police Station and had been exclusively using the said premises for more than two years.

7. The prosecution would further state that acting upon secret information and superior instructions, a special search team headed by one Mr.A.Babu Prashanth, Deputy Superintendent of Police, conducted a raid on 23.05.2022 in the said premises and allegedly recovered: (i) Counterfeit currency notes amounting to Rs. 1,45,50,000/-;(ii)Large quantities of paper bundles cut to the size of currency notes;(iii)Old newspaper bundles;(iv)Certain genuine currency notes allegedly intended to facilitate circulation of counterfeit notes.

8. The prosecution further alleges that the petitioner admitted during enquiry that the seized materials pertained to properties connected with Kallikudi Police Station Crime No.202 of 2021. Apart from the counterfeit currency episode, the prosecution further alleges that during investigation relating to Kallikudi Police Station Crime No.1535 of 2020, the petitioner illegally detained one Punniyamoorthy, demanded and received Rs.25,00,000/- from his wife for securing his release and thereafter misappropriated substantial portions of the said amount while only partially accounting for certain sums through police records.

9. The prosecution also relies upon:(i)Statements of witnesses including police personnel; (ii) Statements of private witnesses including the wife and daughter of Punniyamoorthy;(iii)Alleged suspicious bank transactions;(iv)Recovery proceedings;(v)Forensic Science Laboratory report confirming counterfeit nature of currency