IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.06.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Crl.O.P.No.9339 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.6199 of 2025

1. K.Jayaraman

2. Shanthi

3. J.S.Arun Keerthi .. Petitioners Versus The State, Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, City Special Unit-I, Chennai. .. Respondent Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS r/w 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.14 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Prevention and Corruption Act Cases, Chennai and quash the same as against the petitioners.

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Krishnakumar For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The prayer in the Criminal Original Petition is to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.14 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Chennai and to quash the same.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused, K.Jayaraman, is the public servant, working as Chief Engineer, during the check period 2007-2016. The second accused is his wife. The third accused is his son.

The fourth accused was an employee/manager under the first accused. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would bring to the notice of this Court that in the very same case, the fourth accused had filed a discharge application and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.1933 of 2024. By the order, dated 21.12.2024, this Court considered the difference between statement-III and statement-VII and the fact that the prosecution has calculated the disproportionate assets as 12.12%. Thereafter, this Court considered the error that is made in arriving at the corrected value in statement-VI and recalculated the entire disproportionate assets in paragraph No.13 of the said order and calculated the difference as 9.76%. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Krishnanand Agnihotri Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1, since the disproportionate wealth is less than 10%, the discharge application has already been allowed, the same would follow in respect of the other accused in this case also. Therefore, the present quash application is moved.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the said order of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1933 of 2024 applies in all force to the other accused also. As a matter of fact, the decision reached by this Court is that the case need not be pursued further. Therefore, he would pray that the

1 (1977) 1 SCC 816 Criminal Original Petition be allowed.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, opposing the above said submissions, would submit that firstly, the respondent is aggrieved by the order in Crl.R.C.No.1933 of 2024 and they are preferring an appeal to the file of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He would also further submit that the petitioners had earlier filed a quash application in Crl.O.P.No.3684 of 2022, wherein, the same ground was raised and dismissed. Therefore, he would submit that when the excess amount involved is more than a crore, the percentage that it is only 9.76% need not be strictly applied in this case and even if it is rounded off, it would amount to 10% enabling the organisation to continue the proceedings. Even otherwise, the calculation that is made by this Court is erroneous in law and therefore, they are approaching the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

7. It is relevant to extract the relevant portion of the order, dated

21.12.2024 in Crl.R.C.No.1933 of 2024 and paragraph Nos.3 to 13 are extracted hereunder for ready reference:-

"3. After investigation, the respondent had laid its final report. The quintessencial allegations which the investi