IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-01-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR and Crl MP.No.23479 of 2025 Surgunam @ R.Sargunan S/o. Ramachandran, Area Inspector, (Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs), Puducherry Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. State Represented by The Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Puducherry. Crime No.12 of 2025

2.Ayyanar S/o Balaraman, No.13-A, Tibetiyan Street, Muthialpet, Puducherry.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER: The criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in Crime No.12 of 2025 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Puducherry, Quash the same and thus render Justice.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar For Respondent(s): Mr.M.V. Ramachandra Murthy Public Prosecutor, Govt. of Puducherry Assisted By Mr.M. Thamizhmani For R1 ( V and AC)

ORDER

The petitioner/A1 in Crime No.12 of 2025 filed this quash petition.

2.A case was registered in crime No.12 of 2025 against petitioner along with two others for offences under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an Area Inspector attached to Civil Supplies Department. He falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner never met the de facto complainant/second respondent and made any demand of bribe.

4.The de facto complainant/second respondent’s admitted case is that one Rajesh (A3) received Rs.5,000/- from him and thereafter, transferred to Balakumaran (A2), which is an independent act, the petitioner not aware. Thereafter, on the date of trap i.e. 30.07.2025, Balakumaran (A2) called petitioner and went to his office. Thereafter, some bunch of amount thrusted to him and without giving any time to respond, immediately the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police surrounded the petitioner and conducted phenolphthalein test, which was positive and petitioner was arrested.

5.The Second respondent/Defacto complainant applied for Ration card on

03.04.2025. During May, 2025, petitioner conducted field inspection and gave positive report to issue ration card to Defacto complainant. A2 & A3, having some inside information, projected as though bribe amount has to be paid to the petitioner and thereafter only, field Inspection and Ration Card would be issued and what had happened between A2 and A3 and the second respondent is not within the knowledge of the petitioner. Based on the thrust and forcible handling of money, the petitioner arrayed as an accused. The major requirement of demand acceptance and recovery are not available, hence, prayed for quashing the FIR.

6.The learned Public Prosecutor (Govt. of Puducherry) for the first respondent strongly opposed the petitioner’s contention and submitted that defacto complainant/R2 applied for Ration Card on 03.04.2025 and for months, it was kept without any progress. When de facto complainant approached petitioner, he was informed that he would be getting a phone call. Rajesh (A3) called him and informed that unless Rs.5,000/- is paid, the application would not be considered. Thereafter, on the request of Rajesh, from the account of Praveen his friend, Rs.5,000/- transferred by G.pay and after receipt of amount, field inspection conducted by the petitioner but not issued ration card. Thereafter, during July 2025, the defacto complainant again approached the Civil supplies office, where, he was informed that through A2 another Rs.5,000/- to be paid, otherwise Ration Card will not be issued. The defacto complainant, thereafter lodged a complaint on 29.07.2025 to Superintendent of Police, which was forwarded to the respondent Inspector, who conducted a background check and made arrangements for trap.

7.Trap proceedings recorded and statement of official witnesses recorded.

It was informed by the defacto complainant that demand of bribe was made. Thereafter, defacto complainant contacted A2, w