The Court emphasized that factual disputes must be resolved during trial rather than quash petitions.

ORDER

Today, the matter is listed under the caption “For Being Mentioned” at the instance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the second line of paragraph No.2 of the order dated 28.10.2025, the petitioner has been wrongly mentioned as a widow lady. Hence, seeks clarification.

3.In view of the above submission, the second line of paragraph No.2 replaced as follows:

“2. ... petitioner is a lady and she is employed as Assistant Revenue Officer ...”

4.The Registry is directed to carry out correction in the above order dated 28.10.2025 and issue fresh copy of the order dated 28.10.2025.

5.The issue is clarified, accordingly.

11.11.2025 rsi M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

rsi

11.11.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.10.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.O.P.No.29230 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.Nos.19853 and 19854 of 2025 R.Kaalammal D/o.Late M.Rangasamy, Assistant Revenue Officer/Superintendent, (TNNURM Section), Coimbatore Corporation Town Hall, Coimbatore. ...

Petitioner/A2 Versus State by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Coimbatore District.

(Crime No.07/2018/AC/CB) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, praying to call for the records culminated in Spl.C.C.No.10 of 2022 pending on the file of learned Special Judge, Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore and quash the same as against the petitioner/2^nd accused.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thiyagarajan For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioner/A2 in Spl.C.C.No.10 of 2022 had filed this quash petition.

2.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is a widow lady and she is employed as Assistant Revenue Officer in Coimbatore Corporation. The petitioner was on inspection on the date of trap, she was not present at the time of trap and there was no recovery from the petitioner. A1 in this case is a Junior Assistant, who has got some animosity against the petitioner and also aggrieved, since the petitioner is likely to get promoted, for which, a case has been fabricated and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no demand by the petitioner and no specific allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint. The petitioner was charged for offence under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ('PC Act'), which will not get attracted. Hence, filed this quash petition.

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petitioner's contention submitting that in this case the de-facto complainant and his wife approached the Coimbatore Corporation for assessment of property tax, for which, A1 initially demanded Rs.70,000/-, which was later reduced to Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter A1 took the de-facto complainant to the petitioner/A2, who is the superior and proper officer for assessment of property tax. A2 demanded Rs.60,000/-, later reduced to Rs.50,000/-. Even in the complaint, the overt act of A2 was clearly mentioned and the call details record produced confirmed that there were contacts between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant. A1 is employed under A2 and at the instigation of A2, A1 demanded the amount. The statement of witnesses confirms the same. The petitioner made a demand, ensured that bribe amount is paid and later left the office instructing the de-facto complainant to pay bribe money to A1 just to avoid any complications. The inspection is a created situation by the petitioner. He further submitted that in this case investigation completed, sanction obtained and thereafter charge sheet filed listing LW1 to LW40 and documents LD1 to LD33. There are sufficient materials to show the petitioner's a