IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.OP.No.11005 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.6933 of 2023 Ravi Petitioner Vs.

1. State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch- I Chennai CCB.

Crime No.38 of 2023.

2. Muthulakshmi Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 to call for the records in Crime No.38 of 2023 on the file of the 1^st respondent police and quash the same.

For Petitioner Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel for Mr. A.S. Aswin Prasanna For R1 Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 Mr. K.R.Arun Shabari

ORDER

This petition has been filed for quashment of the FIR in Crime No.38 of 2023 on the file of the 1^st respondent police.

2. The case of the prosecution is that Kumaresan, son of Muthulakshmi (second respondent/de facto complainant), has completed ITI course; while so, one Aneefa (A3) used to visit the de facto complainant’s sugarcane juice shop; Aneefa (A3) assured the de facto complainant that he can get a Government job for her son Kumaresan on the pretext that he is well acquainted with Ravi (petitioner/A1), former PA to a former Health Minister and his driver Vijay (A2); Aneefa (A3) assured the de facto complainant that he will secure a job for her son in any one of the 32 departments and also assured her sister one Chithra that he will secure a job for her son Vishnu also; during August 2020, Aneefa (A3) approached the de facto complainant and demanded Rs.5,00,000/- for getting her son the post of Clerk in Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board; likewise, he also demanded Rs.8,00,000/- from Chitra for securing a job for her son Vishnu; lured by his assurance, the de facto complainant and Chithra parted with sums of Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.4 lakhs respectively; on 04.11.2020, Aneefa (A3) instructed the de facto complainant and Chithra to come to Secretariat to meet the petitioner and Vijay (A2); further, the petitioner demanded the husbands of the de facto complainant and Chithra to give money to Vijay (A2); Vijay (A2) made them come to the car parking area and received the money from the de facto complainant; Chithra’s husband Padmanabhan received the application which was filled by the de facto complainant and Chitra’s son; on 20.02.2021, the de facto complainant’s son received a letter requesting to submit necessary details for the interview; on 27.02.2021, Aneefa (A3) took the de facto complainant’s son to an interview at Vellore, but after reaching Arcot, he informed that the interview was cancelled and no further information was given to them regarding the interview; when the de facto complainant’s son enquired Vijay (A2) about the interview, he did not respond properly; the de facto complainant subsequently approached the petitioner who promised her that their money will be returned; subsequently, goondas came to the de facto complainant’s house and threatened her and Chithra’s family with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

3. Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Government servant working at the Secretariat; he was a former P.A. to a former Health Minister and Aneefa (A3) had misused the name of the petitioner and received money from Chithra and the de facto complainant herein; Chithra gave a complaint on 16.02.2022 before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, alleging that she, along with her sister, had paid Rs.11 lakhs for securing Government job through Aneefa (A3) and Vijay (A2); in that complaint, she alleged that her sister (Muthulakshmi) had also given money; the said complaint was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Fort St. George Police Station and an enquiry was conducted in C.No.164/Ccb/COP/Visitors/2022; the petitioner and Aneefa (A3) were summoned for enquiry; during enquiry, Aneefa (A3) gave a statement to the police admitting that he had misused the petitioner’s name and received amounts from Chithra; Aneefa (A3) als