IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 30.06.2023 PRONOUNCED ON : 12.07.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.6677 of 2010 and M.P.No.2 of 2010

1. M.Rajendran

2. R.Dhanalakshmi

3. R.Dilli Raja ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

2.The Director General of Police, Chennai – 4.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.

4.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.

5.The Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.

6.Vijayaraghavan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

7.M.Sukumaran, Sub Inspector Of Police, District Crime Branch, Office Of The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.

8.Vijayakumar Head Constable, District Crime Branch, Office of the Superintendent Of Police Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.

9. Manoj Kumar

10.T.A.Sudarsanan

11. T.A.Kannan ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to FIR in Cr.No.74/2009 dated 22.12.2009 on the file of the fourth respondent, quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mrs.V.S.Manimekalai For Mr.V.S.Selvaraj For R1 to R5 : Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.T.Arun Kumar Additional Government Pleader For R6 to R8 : Mr.H.Manivannan For R9 to R11 : Mr.V.Sivalingam For M/s. Siva Associates :Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel, (Amicus Curiae)

O R D E R

The Writ of Certiorari on hand has been instituted to quash First Information Report (F.I.R) in Crime No.74 of 2009 dated 22.12.2009.

PETITIONERS CASE:

2. It is an interesting case, where the Government employees / Police Officials between themselves raising the allegations of corruption against each other, to the huge extent. Thus, it is imminent for this Court to consider the state of affairs and the large scale corruption amongst the Public Servants visibly noticed in the public domain. Though the Constitutional Courts emphasised that the corruption will stall the developmental activities, there is no considerable improvement in the matter of controlling the corruption in our Great Nation. Thus, this Court has taken a little effort to emphasis and to create awareness with a fond hope that some steps will be taken to minimise the corruption, by all concerned.

3. The first petitioner was a Government employee. The petitioners two and three purchased a property in Sriperumpudur Village through a Sale Deed dated 17.09.2009 vide Document No.6938 of 2009 from M/s.Sri Rama Sankara Sharma alias Rama Nivasha Chari and his brother Krishna Sharma.

4. The old building in the said property was demolished during October 2009. Knowing the fact that the petitioners two and three purchased the property , the tenth respondent, who is an Advocate and the eleventh respondent, who was a Councillor of Kancheepuram Municipality and his brother demanded money from the petitioners. On 23.12.2009 at about 4:00 a.m., respondents seven, eight and ten came to the house of the petitioners. The seventh respondent / Sub-Inspector of Police informed the petitioners one and three that they should go to the District Crime Branch to answer the complaints made against them regarding the purchase of property. The first petitioner went to the District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram with his son in their car. The seventh respondent was also got into the first petitioner’s car.

Respondents eight and ten followed the petitioners in another car and came to the Police Station.

5. As soon as they reached the District Crime Branch Office, the seventh respondent / Sub-Inspector seized the cell phone belonging to the petitioner and did not permit the petitioner to seek legal assistance. He restricted the movement of their driver and comm