The High Court will not quash an FIR at the pre-investigation stage if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, as the court must not evaluate the merits or sufficiency of evidence at this stage; investigation must be allowed to proceed.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.16/2021/AC/CV registered for the offences under Sections 120(b), 109 of IPC, Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act on the file of the 1^st respondent.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the co-accused / A.1 had connived with other accused and demanded huge amount as bribe for the purpose of awarding higher marks and to appoint them in the University for the post of Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor to various departments. It is further alleged that A.1 demanded a sum of Rs.40 Lakhs from one Vinoth Kumar through A.4. The 1^st respondent had suomotu registered the FIR in respect of demand of money and in receipt of bribe in Crime No.16/2021/AC/CB for offences under Sections 120(b), 109 of IPC, Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A.3 and after registration of FIR, the petitioner’s husband lodged a complaint before the 2^nd respondent as against the said Vinothkumar alleging that he had made a false statement, as if he was demanded money by the petitioner to appoint him in the post of Associate Professor. On the said complaint, the 2^nd respondent issued summons to the said Vinothkumar and conducted enquiry. During the enquiry, the said Vinothkumar submitted that he never paid any amount and he did not even know the petitioner herein and her husband. Therefore, the present FIR has been registered with false information and the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged allegation. He further submitted that the FIR is pending from the year 2021 without any progress, thereby pleaded to quash the same.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that in the year 2016, recruitment was initiated to the post of Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor in various departments of Bharathiar University. Therefore, the 1^st respondent registered FIR and now the investigation is still pending.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents and perused the available documents placed on record.

6. In fact, in the year 2024, the Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.23724 of 2024 challenging the order passed by the Registrar of Bharathiar University dated 13.06.2024. In the said Writ Petition, this Court, by an order dated 28.10.2024, constituted a Committee consisting of five members from various departments of Bharathiar University to scrutinise 68 appointments made in the Bharathiar University in the year 2016 and disposed of the said Writ Petition. Further, the Scrutinising Committee is now scrutinising the appointments and it is in progress. Therefore, there is a delay in completion of investigation. Also, the statement recorded from the said Vinothkumar produced by the petitioner herein cannot be considered by this Court at this stage. Only based upon the report to be submitted by the scrutinising committee, the 1^st respondent has to proceed further investigation in the present Crime no. 16 of 2021. That apart, there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to register the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 109 of IPC, Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the judgment reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350