Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 21840
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Tr.P.Tamilmani – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu rep – Respondent
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 06.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI CRL OP(MD)No.20936 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.17811 of 2025 P.Tamilmani ... Petitioner Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Trichy.
2. M.Kalyani ... Respondents Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records of Spl.C.No.3 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirappalli, dated 20.07.2020 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi for Mr.K.Shanmuga sundaram For R1 : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Spl.C.No.3 of 2020 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirappalli. The respondent Police has filed the final report as against the 1st accused and the petitioner/A2 for the offence punishable under Sections 7(b) and 12 of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 r/w. Section 107 of IPC. Now, the petitioner has filed this petition, seeking to quash the case in Spl.C.No.3 of 2020 pending against him.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been charged that he has abetted the defacto complainant to pay the bribe money as demanded by the 1st accused. Admittedly, there was no demand for the petitioner/2nd accused and there was no receipt of money by the petitioner/2nd accused. However, the final report has been filed as against the petitioner/2nd accused that he has abetted the defacto complainant to pay the bribe amount as demanded by the 1st accused. According to the learned counsel, the alleged demand was on 18.06.2019 at about 11.00 a.m. However, as per the statements of the witnesses, who are working in the Department, the duty hours of the petitioner/2nd accused on 18.06.2019 is from 12.00 noon to 6.00 p.m. and therefore, there is no possibility of the petitioner being available at the time of alleged demand by the 1st accused. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that this is a fit case for quashing the final report filed as against the petitioner/2nd accused.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by referring to the statement recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. submits that there was a demand on behalf of the 1st accused by the petitioner/2nd accused and it is a matter for trial and it can be decided only during the trial.
4. This Court considered the rival submissions made.
5. The petitioner/2nd accused has been charged that he has abetted the defacto complainant to give the bribe amount as demanded by the 1st accused. Admittedly, the petitioner/2nd accused has not received any money and he was not present at the time of trap. The officials, who are working in the Department, namely, P.W.17 and P.W.18 stated that the duty hours of the petitioner/2nd accused on the date of alleged demand was only from 12.00 noon and therefore, according to the learned counsel, there is no possibility of the petitioner being present at the time of the initial demand at about 11.00 a.m. However, this is a matter to be decided only during the trial. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the case in Spl.C.No.3 of 2020 on this ground alone. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all these grounds before the trial Court and establish his case during the trial.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.03.2026 ogy Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No. NCC : Yes / No.
To
1. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Trichy.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy
06.03.2026
