SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 84604

MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.KAVITHA, AGED 52 YEARS – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
CRL OP 18504/2018



Advocates:
['M/S G R HARI', '', 'L SHARADH KUMAR', 'B A SUJAY PRASANNA', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR', '', 'NOTICE SERVED ON R', 'A', 'RAYAN KUTTAI STREET', 'KANCHEEPURAM']

Crl.OP.Nos.18504 and 18650 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on

23.08.2022

Pronounced on

15.11.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

Crl.OP.No.18504 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.9732 of 2018

and Crl.O.P.No.18650 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.9830 of 2018

M.Kavitha

Additional Commissioner

(Tiruppani), HR&CE Department

W/o.Shri.P.Saravanan,

No.12, Kapali Nagar,

Mylapore,

Chennai - 600 004.

... Petitioner / 1st Accused in both cases

Vs.

1.State,

Inspector of Police,

Sivakanchi Police Station,

Kancheepuram.

(Ref:Cr.No.341 of 2018 dt.14.07.2018)

2. Mr.A.Dillibabu

... Respondents in both cases

Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.18504 of 2018: Criminal Original Petition filed under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.M.P.No.3256 of 2018 on

the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram and set aside the order

dated 25.06.2018.

Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.18650 of 2018:Criminal Original Petition filed under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records to quash the FIR bearing Crime

No.341 of 2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Sivakanchi Police

Station, Kancheepuram as against the petitioner.

1/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP.Nos.18504 and 18650 of 2018

For Petitioner

: Mr.A.Ramesh, Senior Counsel

For Mr.G.R.Hari in both cases

For R1

: Mr.S.Udaya Kumar

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

in both cases.

For R2

: Mr.K.P.P.Raja Raja Chozhan,

Legal-Aid-Counsel in both cases.

C O M M O N O R D E R

The first accused is the petitioner herein. The petitioner is an

Additional Commissioner.

2. (a)The petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 25.06.2018

passed in C.M.P.No.3256 of 2018 which is filed under Section 156 (3) of

Cr.P.C., directing the first respondent-police to register the F.I.R and to

investigate the matter.

(b) The second respondent herein claims to be a 'Chalk Artist' by

profession and he alleged that the renovation work of Ekambaranathar

temple at Kancheepuram where carried out with JCB which according to the

defacto-complainant (R2), is violation of law. It is further alleged that

renovation work were funded by the Government. But the accused, a public

servant have invited donations through temple website and those donations

2/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP.Nos.18504 and 18650 of 2018

have been misappropriated. Though two crores rupees was estimated work,

according to the petitioner, there is no substantiate value of the work order

and also alleged that the funds released for renovation of work were

misappropriated.

3. With these allegations, he has filed the Crl.M.P. No. 3256/ 2018

before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram under Section 156

of Cr.P.C.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram has passed order as

under:-

"Complainant present. Petition and documents

perused. There are probable questions to be

investigated in this case. Hence the Inspector, Siva

Kanchee Police Station, directed to register an F.I.R and

investigate this matter as soon as possible."

5. Pursuant to the said order, it appears that the Inspector of Police

has registered an F.I.R in Crime No.341 of 2018 against the petitioners

M.Kavitha, Sivaji, Ramani, V.Murugesan, V.Balasubramani and Sthapathy

R.Nandakumar for alleged offence under Section 120-B, 379, 380(2), 409,

420, 437 and 468 of I.P.C.

3/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP.Nos.18504 and 18650 of 2018

6. In the said petition, the defacto-complainant placed reliance upon

the Judgment of Madurai Bench of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5044 of 2011

in Thangarasu Vs.Assistant Commissioner dated 28.03.2017 for the

proposition on the footing that no prior sanction is required for prosecution

of public servants.

7. The above mentioned decision has been overruled by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Anil Kumar V M.K. Aiyappa (2013) 10 SCC 705 as

discussed infra.

8

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top