The presence of prima facie evidence is sufficient to reject a quash petition in cases of alleged corruption.

ORDER

This Court on 21.11.2025 had passed the following order:

“The petitioner/A1, who is facing trial in Spl.C.C.No.14 of

2025 for offence under Sections 7 and 12 r/w 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, had filed this quash petition.

2.The learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that the respondent created and fabricated documents to suit their case contrary to the truth. The petitioner was a former Motor Vehicle Inspector, Grade-I at Unit Office, Kallakurichi. It was projected as though the de-facto complainant approached the petitioner seeking Fitness Certificate for Mahindra Maxi cab vehicle bearing registration No.TN-31-AY-0678. Initially, it was projected that vehicle belongs to one Ramesh and thereafter, when he approached the petitioner, the petitioner said to have demanded Rs.25,000/- for issuance of Fitness Certificate and the de-facto complainant Muthukumar, who is running a driving school informed the demand of bribe to the said Ramesh and the Ramesh was not willing to pay bribe and directed the de-facto complainant to lodge a complaint. Thereafter the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint, trap laid and the recovery of trap amount shown from one Senthilkumar/A2.

3.According to the petitioner, the petitioner does not know A2. The petitioner has got nothing to do with A2. He further submitted that the vehicle belongs to one Subramanian. On the day of trap, i.e., on 11.09.2018, no application for fitness certificate from the actual owner Subramanian was pending with the RTO. The application for fitness certificate was submitted after the trap, i.e., on 27.09.2018. On coming to know about the mistake committed, documents created by the respondents after a period of 7 months. The receipts would confirm that the payment made much after the date of trap. He further submitted that in this case trap was initiated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), later investigation carried out by the Inspector of Police, which is in clear violation of Vigilance Manual. He further submitted that once a trap was laid by the DSP, the Inspector of Police being a subordinate naturally has to toe the line of the DSP. He cannot take a different view despite collection of materials. For this reasons documents have been fabricated in this case.

4.In support of his contention, the petitioner referred to the documents and receipts, which forms part of the charge sheet. He further submitted that it is a motivated complaint since the petitioner was a strict officer, who inspect the vehicle thoroughly and issue certificate not heeding to the request of the driving school persons and now all teamed up and a false case has been fabricated. The petitioner attained superannuation and due to the pendency of the above case, he is unable to get his terminal benefits. The petitioner’s family members are dependant on the terminal benefits.

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petitioner’s contention and produced recovery mahazar and submitted that in the recovery mahazar, the document which the petitioner relying upon have been seized from the petitioner’s table which would confirm that the vehicle was in the name of Subramanian. The statement of Subramaniam confirms that since he is uneducated, signature alone obtained in the Forms and without knowing the contents of it he signed. Taking this as an advantage the petitioner is projecting a false case. He further seeks time to file his detailed counter.

6.Post on 09.12.2025.”

2.In continuation and conjunction to the above order, this Court is passing the following order.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) filed his