Madras High Court
Mr.Ma.Subramanian vs The State Represented By on 28 March, 2025
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 20.12.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 28.03.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020 and
Crl.M.P.No.5807 of 2020
1. Mr.Ma.Subramanian
2. Mrs.Kanchana ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State represented by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Organized Crime Uni-II,
Crime Branch CID, Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
2. Sathiyamoorthy
Investigation Officer,
Deputy Superintendent of Police
OCU-II, CBCID, Chennai.
3. S.Parthiban ..Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to call
for the records pertaining to the Final Report dated 02.11.2019 filed in
C.C.No.39 of 2020 in Crime No.478 of 2019 pending before the
Additional Special Court for Trial of Cases related to Members of
Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamilnadu and
quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
1/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
For Petitioners : Dr.S.Muralidhar, Senior Advocate
Assisted by Mr.Richardson Wilson
for the first petitioner
Mr.P.Wilson, Senior Advocate for
M/s.P.Wilson Associates
for the second petitioner
For Respondent : Mr.J.Ravindran, AAG, Assisted by
Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar,
Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 & R2
Mr.D.Selvam for R3
******
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.39 of 2020 in Crime No.478 of 2019, pending before the
Additional Special Court for Trial of Cases related to Members of
Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamilnadu.
2 Based on the complaint given by the third
respondent/defacto complainant, a case in Cr.No.478 of 2019 has been
registered against the petitioners herein for the offence under Sections
420, 464, 465, 466, 468 r/w 120-B of IPC and subsequently the complaint
was transferred to CB CID for completion of investigation and the same
was registered in Cr.No.1 of 2019. It is the case of the prosecution that the
first petitioner was serving as Ward Councilor from 1996-2011, as ward
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
2/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
and zonal councilor from 2001 to 2006 and from 2006 to 2011 as Mayor
of Chennai Corporation. In the year 1995 first petitioner purchased
Labour Tenement No.4 in the name of his wife/A2, the second petitioner
herein from the original allottee one S.K.Kannan, which was allotted by
TANSIDCO, for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.2.30 lakhs knowing
fully well that the property belongs to TANSIDCO. In the year 1997,
when the Government issued an order for transfer of ownerships and
when TANSIDCO started processing applications for issue of sale deeds,
A1 and A2 conspired together and produced an application on 30.05.1997
to the Project Officer/Branch Manager TANSIDCO signed by
S.K.Kannan original allottee, wherein A2 the second petitioner was
shown as daughter of S.K.Kannan. The application was given enclosing a
copy of family card of the first accused issued for the year 1993-1998, in
which S.K.Kannan was shown as father-in-law of A1 and subsequently
the same was processed by TANSIDCO and a demand notice dated
27.02.1998 was issued in the name of A2 for collection of rental dues,
water charges, cost of tenement and maintenance charges all amount to
Rs.28,827/-and in the year 1998 in order to legalize the occupancy. To
grab the property of TANSIDCO, A1 obtained an affidavit from
S.K.Kannan and produced the said document for transfer of Labour
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
3/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
Tenement No.4 in the name of A2 and thereby committed an offence
under Section 420 r/w 120B IPC. In continuation of the said offence, A1
and A2 entered into conspiracy, due to which, S.K.Kannan made a request
to TANSIDCO to transfer the allotment of Labour Tenement No.4 in
favour of A2 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section
468 IPC. Further, in continuation of the demand notice issued by
TANSIDCO, A1 and A2 have obtained various services from
Government Department and committed offence punishable under Section
420 IPC. During the year 2006-2011, when A1 was Mayor of Chennai
Corporation, he abused his official position and got the property tax for
Labour tenement No.4 assessed in the name of A2 and paid property tax
to the tune of Rs.11,725/- on 20.04.2007 and obtained four EB
connections in the name of A2 between 2006-2009 and regularized his
unauthorized occupation in Labour Tenement and thereby committed the
offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act.
3 After completing investigation, the respondent police filed a
charge sheet before the learned Additional Special Judge for Trial of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
4/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
Cases related to Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative
Assembly of Tamilnadu, which was taken on file in C.C.No.39 of 2020.
The said case is pending at the stage of ‘framing of charges’. Now the
petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the above case.
4 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that
the third respondent, backed by political opponent belonging to AIADMK
party, who has lost the 2016 Assembly elections against the first petitioner
has been knocking on the doors of this Court by way of various frivolous
petitions and it is very clear that the entire criminal case is a foisted one
with the blessing of the then ruling party at the time of complaint,
misusing and abusing the legal process. Hence, the complaint is
absolutely politically motivated. The complainant was set up by the
defeated candidate of the then ruling party to tarnish the image of the first
petitioner and hence with malafide intention, the complaint has been given
and even if it is read as a whole, no criminal offence is made out.
4.1 Admittedly the tenement No.4 belongs to the TANSIDCO,
was allotted to one S.K.Kannan, who had alienated his tenancy rights over
the said property in favour of the second petitioner for valuable sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
5/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
consideration. TANSIDCO finding that the tenements having changed
hands from the original allottees, decided to sell the tenements itself in
favour of the occupants and therefore the TANSIDCO, by its letter
R.C.No.15437/R5/02 dated 13.02.2008 addressed to the Secretary to
Government, proposing to sell the tenements to the occupants. In the
annexure enclosed along with the letter requesting execution of sale deed
in favour of unauthorized occupants in Labour Tenements, 2nd petitioner’s
name alone is reflected as ‘unauthorized occupant’ and hence there is no
criminality and the first petitioner is no way connected to the above
transaction.
4.2 There is no law governing allotment of tenements relating to
TANSIDCO and hence purchase of rights of Tenement No.4 by the
second petitioner from the original allottee is not in violation of any
provisions of law. Under the Transfer of Property Act, such rights are
alienable and are transferable for valuable sale consideration. It is for the
owner of the property either to regularize it or not. Therefore ingredients
of Section 420 IPC are not made out and there is no cheating at all.
TANSIDCO has not made any complaint that it has been cheated. In the
final report filed by the respondent police, no where it is stated that what
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
6/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
property has been delivered by TANSIDCO as it is the consistent stand of
TANSIDCO that they never acted upon on the application given by
S.K.Kannan and no change of allotment was made and hence there is no
wrongful gain or wrongful loss within the meaning of Section 420 IPC,
which is proved in the counter affidavit filed by TANSIDCO in the
W.P.No.10939 of 2018, which was filed by the third respondent herein
seeking directions to the official respondents therein to remove the alleged
encroachment by the petitioners herein. The said counter affidavit filed by
the TANSIDCO would clearly establish that only S.K.Kannan, the person
who sold his rights to the second petitioner had approached TANSIDCO
and furnished all the documents and not by the first petitioner and even
the application of S.K.Kannan was also not processed and hence Sections
420, 464, 465, 466 and 468 r/w 120B are not attracted.
4.3 Despite knowing the fact that the complaint is inherently
improbable, reeling under the terrible pressure from the then ruling party,
the Investigating Officer has not only implicated the petitioners under
repealed provisions of Section 13(i)(d)(i) and (ii) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, but also filed the final report, which is an abuse of
process of law and intent to wreck vengeance against the first petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
7/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
Even otherwise, the first petitioner has no role at all and he is
unnecessarily dragged by the third respondent herein.
4.4 It is admitted by the TANSIDCO through their counter
affidavit filed in W.P.No.10939 of 2018 that S.K.Kannan has produced
only copy of the ration card for the year 1993-1998 and no originals are
available either with TANSIDCO or prosecution to prove the alleged
interpretation and inclusion of the name of S.K.Kannan in the ration card.
However, since there is no transfer of allotment in the name of the
petitioners and the documents allegedly produced by S.K.Kannan were
only a xerox copy, the offence under Section 468 IPC is not made out.
4.5 It is alleged by the prosecution that the first petitioner being a
public servant, holding the office of the Mayor of Chennai Corporation,
abused his position to regularize and legalize the illegal occupation of
Labour Tenement No.4 in the name of the second petitioner and got the
assessment of property tax on 20.04.2007 and obtained four electricity
connections. The assessment of property tax in favour of the second
petitioner cannot be at any stretch of imagination be a valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage. The word assessment is a liability, which is revenue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
8/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
to the Corporation of Chennai. Likewise obtaining electricity service
connection by the second petitioner for her own use cannot be offence
attracting Prevention of Corruption Act. The first petitioner, while he was
a Mayor, had no dominion nor control over assessment, which has to be
done by the Commissioner in exercise of his statutory powers under
Section 9 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 and also
he has no dominion or control over TANGEDCO to abuse the power to
provide electricity service connection to the residence of the second
petitioner by TANGEDCO in exercise of powers under the Board’s
Terms and Conditions framed pursuant to powers under the Indian
Electricity Act. Assessment by a revenue officer also cannot be said to be
a valuable thing or a pecuniary advantage as directed under Section
13(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Per contra, it is a
liability and in case of non-payment, prosecution is contemplated. Neither
in FIR nor in the Final Report, no official is named for having assessed
due to the abuse of power of the first petitioner. Only in case, where tax is
payable by the Commissioner, the original assessment shall be made by
the Mayor. The first petitioner, who was a Mayor during 2006 to 2011, by
no stretch of imagination could have had access to records maintained by
the Corporation Commissioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
9/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
4.6 As far as obtaining of four electricity service connections
from TANGEDCO, the same are governed by Tamilnadu Electricity
Supply Code, which is framed pursuant to powers conferred under Section
50 r/w Section 181 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003. The final report does
not spell out whether any officials in TNEB were influenced by the first
petitioner. The first petitioner, who was only Mayor had no dominion or
official control over TANGEDCO. Electricity connections are provided
even to huts on Government properties. Even the encroacher is entitled to
electricity service connection. Thus, mere possession of an immovable
property is sufficient for effecting electricity service connection, which
cannot be imagined to be a valuable or pecuniary advantage.
4.7 Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
has been substituted by Act 16/2018 on 26.07.2018. The FIR was
registered on 31.05.2019 and on the date of registering FIR, Section
13(1)(d)(i)(ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, already stands
substituted. Hence after substitution with new provisions, the question of
registration of FIR on a non-existing penal provision does not arise at all.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
10/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
4.8 It is the stand of TANSIDCO that even unauthorized
occupants are entitled for Sale Deed and hence the question of grabbing
property or cheating does not arise. What does not amount to land
grabbing is defined by Hon’ble First Bench of this Court reported in
2015(1) LW 673 in the case of Thamarai Selvan vs. Government of
Tamilnadu, wherein, it was held that mere transfer of actionable rights
does not come under the land grabbing unless there is penal provisions.
4.9 Further it is alleged by the prosecution that at the time of
commission of offence, the petitioner was Mayor of Corporation of
Chennai, but no sanction under Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption
Act was obtained before investigation from the Government, rather
sanction was obtained from the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.
Hence the case suffers from want of proper sanction and the entire
prosecution is liable to be set aside since it is a fatal defect on the side of
the prosecution. Further cognizance of complaint under Section 197
Cr.P.C. by any Court is barred, unless proper sanction is obtained from
the proper authority. Further the respondent failed to conduct preliminary
enquiry, which is clear violation of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, which is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
11/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
also fatal to the case of the prosecution.
4.10 The malafide prosecution by the second respondent is evident
in all the correspondences filed as documents along with final report such
as Doc.Nos.20, 21 and 31 as there are 94 unauthorized occupants in the
Chennai tenemants of TANSIDCO. In Tamilnadu 1099 tenements are
there and no criminal complaint has been registered against them and
TANSIDCO has not preferred any criminal complaint, as there are
thousands of occupants, who are similarly situated like that of the second
petitioner throughout Tamil Nadu and hence the complaint by political
opponent is for malafide reason and the same cannot be entertained.
4.11 The issue of ‘unauthorized occupation’ is a matter of civil
nature and a cloak of criminality cannot be given. The final report is
vindictive and malafide as the second respondent was acting at the behest
of the ruling AIADMK party. The final report together with the
documents filed by the prosecution does not attract any offences set out in
the impugned final report and no case is admittedly made out warranting a
full-fledged trial and therefore it is waste of judicial time if the petitioners
are allowed to face the trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
12/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
5 Learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents 1 and 2 would
submit that Tenement No.4 belongs to the TANSIDCO and when the
land belongs to the Government, allottee S.K.Kannan cannot alienate the
Government property to the accused or any individual for sale
consideration and hence it is amounting to illegal transfer of Government
property through forgery and creation of false documents. Allottee or
lessees have no right to alienate the Government land for valuable sale
consideration and thereby the sale consideration by itself is null and void.
The documents whatsoever with the accused pertaining to Tenement No.4
are all false and forged one.
5.1 Document No.11 annexed with the final report is a
membership form (dated 09.06.1997) of Thiru.Vi.Ka.Employee
Residential Association, No.57 Guindy, Chennai – 600 032, which shows
that the first petitioner is resident of Tenement No.4. Hence it is clear that
the first petitioner is knowingly residing in the Government property in
collusion with the second petitioner/A2, who is none other than his wife.
Further Doc.No.7 is tenancy details, which clearly shows that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
13/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
“Ma.Subramani” is the occupant and his signature also found on the same,
however, the same have been scored out and his wife name viz. the
second accused namely Tmt.Kanchana and her signature has been added.
Therefore, it is clear that the first petitioner/A1, in order to grab the
Government property, has created false and fabricated documents as if the
Tenement No.4 is in the name of his wife, who has been shown as
daughter of S.K.Kannan, the original allottee.
5.2 Section 463 IPC defines forgery, as per which, it is clear that
Tenement No.4 belonging to the Government and allotted to S.K.Kannan,
has been taken over by the first petitioner A1, through an illegal sale deed.
Further the first petitioner/A1 with an intention to take over this property,
created false and forged documents to claim ownership of the property,
abusing his position as the Mayor of Chennai Corporation and hence it is
clear that the petitioners are residing in the Government property on the
strength of forged and fabricated documents.
5.3 With regard to offence under Section 420 IPC, which deals
with cheating, the petitioners/A1 and A2 dishonestly induced the original
allottee S.K.Kannan to deliver Labour Tenement No.4 and subsequently
altered all the Government records initially in the name of the first
petitioner and later in the name of the second petitioner. It is an admitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
14/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
fact that the original allottee S.K.Kannan, approached TANSIDCO in the
year 1998 for allotment of Labour Tenement No.4 in favour of his only
daughter Tmt.Kanchana, who is A2 and who is not a daughter of
S.K.Kannan. Document No.17 is Passport application form submitted by
A2 Tmt.Kanchana, in which it is clearly stated that her father name is
“Sarangabani”. Document No.18 Legal Heir Certificate, dated 17.06.2016
of allottee S.K.Kannan shows that he had 5 daughters and one son,
wherein Tmt.Kanchana/A2 name has not been found as legal heir.
Therefore the petitioners/A1 and A2 are under the illegal possession of
TANSIDCO tenement belonging to the Government from the year 1995.
The entire conspiracy has been done with the knowledge of the first
petitioner/A1, who at that time, was holding an important post, as Mayor
of Chennai Corporation. Hence Section 420 IPC is clearly made out.
5.4 The petitioners/A1 and A2 entered into criminal conspiracy
to illegally grab the TANSIDCO Tenement No.4, although they are not
entitled for the same as per the Government rules. Hence, they entered
into a sale agreement with S.K.Kannan, the original allottee of the Labour
Tenement No.4 and thereafter took possession of the property. Since,
there is provision for the allottee to pass on the property to his legal heir,
the first petitioner/A1 submitted forged documents claiming his wife A2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
15/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
as daughter of S.K.Kannan to whom the tenement was initially allotted.
But, in reality, A2 is wife of A1 Thiru. Ma. Subramanian and she is not
the daughter of the S.K.Kannan. It is also clear, that the first petitioner/A1
has also submitted fake ration card, in which S.K.Kannan has been shown
as his father-in-law. Further the first petitioner/A1 got the property tax
assessed in the name of A2 from the year 1998 onward till 2007 for
TANSIDCO Labour Tenement No.4 and he had paid it. Thereby A1 by
abusing his official position, influenced the property tax department to get
the work done, from the concerned officer and using this property tax
receipt, he got four electricity service connections in the name of his wife
A2 by misusing his position as Mayor of Chennai Corporation.
5.5 The property tax has not been assessed directly by the first
petitioner and it was assessed by the Chennai Corporation in the name of
A2 Tmt. Kanchana wife of the first petitioner/A1 Thiru.Ma.Subramanian.
When TANSIDCO Labour Tenement No.4 belongs to the Government
and A2 is not owner of the property, assessing the property tax in her
name is incorrect and illegal and the same has been done with the
influence and pressure from A1, who was the Mayor of Chennai
Corporation at that time. Property tax receipt and sewerage & water tax
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
16/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
receipts are the basic important documents required to get electricity
service connection. Hence, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel
that A1 has no role in the assessment of tax cannot be accepted. Further,
the first petitioner/A1 cannot claim to be unaware or ignorant of the
submission of such false and fabricated documents, to obtain ownership of
tenement since, he was holding a very high and responsible post of Mayor
of Chennai Corporation at that time. Hence, section 13(1)(d) (i)(ii) r/w
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, rightly invoked against
A1, which is proper. The first petitioner holding the high office of Mayor
of Corporation of Chennai, is very well aware that property tax, sewerage
tax receipt and electricity service connection etc., cannot be obtained in
the name of his wife for a Government property that has been allotted to
S.K.Kannan, which has not been allotted to him, and on which he has no
ownership. The first petitioner has used his influence, as Mayor of
Corporation of Chennai to pressurise and obtain all these from the
concerned department circumventing the Government rules and
regulations.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
17/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
5.6 The contention of the petitioners that the effect of
substitution in the Prevention of Corruption Act on 26.07.2018 bars
registration of fresh FIR by invoking offences under previous Act is
totally incorrect and unsustainable, as the offence was committed prior to
the amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act and hence the penal
provisions which were in existence at the time of the offence can only be
invoked as per settled position of law. Therefore, the question of sanction
under section 17A contemplated in the Amendment does not arise as the
offence invoked is only under section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii), which was in
existence during the period in which offence was committed and however
proper sanction was obtained under Section 19 of Prevention of
Corruption Act.
5.7 Unauthorised occupants by way of forged documents cannot
be entitled for Sale Deeds and so far, no Sale Deed issued to any
unauthorised occupants. Further, TANSIDCO Tenement No.4 which
belongs to Government cannot be alienated by way of sale consideration
by any person. Obtaining forged documents like property tax, water &
sewerage tax, electricity service connections on obtaining forged sale
consideration cannot be treated as actionable rights. All the forged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
18/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
documents have been submitted to TANSIDCO, as if the same are
original for obtaining sale deed. Admittedly the first petitioner/A1 was
the Mayor of Chennai Corporation at the time of committing the offences
and subsequently ceased to be a Mayor and now elected as a Member of
the State Assembly, during the Assembly Election held in the year 2016.
It is the settled position of law that sanction to prosecute the public
servant as per section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act is not required,
when the said public servant ceased to be public servant at the time of
filing the charge sheet. However, since the offence is continuing offence
in nature and the first petitioner/A1 continues to abuse his position and
office even while he was a Member of Legislative Assembly, the previous
sanction was scrupulously obtained from the Hon’ble Speaker of the
Legislative Assembly under section 197 Cr. P.C. and Section 19 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence, the case does not suffer from want
of proper sanction.
5.8 It is not a suo-motu action by the police and cognizance taken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
19/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
based on the complaint given by the third respondent and hence, police
action is in order. “Unauthorized occupation” with forged documents is
criminal in nature. TANSIDCO Tenement No.4 has been grabbed by way
of forged documents by abuse of power originally in the name of the first
petitioner/A1 and further forged documents in favour of A2. Hence, it is
not civil nature as contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners.
5.9 There is sufficient evidence in the form of documents and
statements of witnesses to substantiate the charges against the
petitioners/A1 and A2 and they have to face trial to meet the ends of
justice. The scrutiny of documents in connection with this case and the
deposition of witnesses reveal the part played by the petitioners.
5.10 The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sajjan Kumar Vs
CBI reported in AIR 2011 SC (Cri) 1537 has held that if there is a strong
suspicion, which leads the court to think that there is ground for
presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open
to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused. In this case there are sufficient evidences to prove the guilt of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
20/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
the accused and for framing of charges. Further the case is at pre-trial
stage and charges have to be framed by the trial court against the accused
and in the event of any prima facie materials available on record the Court
will proceed further or else the petitioners will be discharged.
5.11 While exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this
Court cannot sit as a court of appeal or revision. The jurisdiction vested in
this court is inherent. Though it is wide, it has to be exercised sparingly,
carefully and with caution, that too, when such exercise is justified by the
tests specifically laid down in the section itself. In the case of “State of
Karnataka Vs. Devendrappa” reported in AIR 2002 SC 671, that courts
exist for advancement of justice and that section 482 Cr.P.C. is not an
instrument handed over to the accused to cut short prosecution and bring
about its sudden death in the form of quashing proceedings. Inherent
power should not be exercised, according to the Hon’ble Apex Court, to
stifle a legitimate prosecution. Therefore the case in C.C.No.39 of 2020
against the petitioners/A1 and A2 cannot be quashed and they have to
necessarily face trial.
6 The learned counsel for the third respondent would submit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
21/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
that the third respondent had contested the Tamil Nadu Assembly
Elections – 2016 in Saidapet Assembly Constituency as an independent
candidate. The official candidate set up by DMK party, namely
Ma.Subramanian has also filed the nomination giving various false
information in the nomination form. In Form No.26 in Column No.B(iv),
he has stated that the property situate at Adayar Village, old Door No4,
present Door No.7-1/4, Labour Colony, Guindy, Chennai-32, was owned
by TANSIDCO and the said property stands in the name of his wife the
second petitioner by way of lease-cum-sale agreement with TANSIDCO.
But the said property was originally allotted to S.K.Kannan, son of
Sundaramurthy by the Industries and Commerce Department on
14.02.1959. The records available in the TANSIDCO in respect of Labour
Tenement No.4 have all been entered and maintained in the name of
S.K.Kannan. The said S.K.Kannan died on 15.10.2015 by leaving behind
his daughters, namely (1) K.Saiyeelakshmi, (ii) Sabitha, (iii) Shanthi, (iv)
Sasikala and (v) Sankari and his only son (6) K.Srinivasan. The Village
Administrative Officer-cum-Registrar of Birth and Death had issued a
Death Certificate on 17.06.2016 and the Tahsildar, Mambalam Taluk, had
also issued legal heirship certificate through his proceedings
Ni.Mu.E.1/5417/16, dated 17.06.2016. In the said legal heirship
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
22/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
certificate, the name of the second petitioner/A2 Kanchana, is not found.
Since the said Ma.Subramanian has submitted false information in his
nomination papers in the Tamil Nadu Assembly Election-2016 in Saidapet
Assembly Constituency, the third respondent had filed Election Petition
before this Court in ELP.No.10 of 2016 and the same was rejected by this
Court by order dated 06.04.2018 and the third respondent is taking action
to file appeal before the competent Court.
6.1 The first petitioner is a Lawyer and he also became Mayor
for Corporation of Chennai and by using the said power and political
influence, he has created so many documents to grab the above said
Government property and the same was produced before TANSIDCO and
other authorities with an intention to grab the above said property. The
third respondent came to understand that the said Ma.Subramanian,
submitted an Affidavit before TANSIDCO by stating that the said
S.K.Kannan has requested TANSIDCO to allot his Labour Tenement to
his daughter, namely Kanchana through Notary Affidavit, but it is to be
noted that in the said Legal Heirship certificate of S.K.Kannan,
Kanchana’s name was not found. From the said illegal act, it is clear that
the first petitioner has committed forgery to grab the Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
23/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
property. The first petitioner had demolished the said building and
constructed house in the said land for ground floor, first floor and second
floor, without getting proper approval and planning permission from the
Corporation of Chennai. When the said Kanchana is not the owner of the
property, how Corporation of Chennai can make property tax assessment
and how can the Corporation of Chennai can collect the property tax for
Government property in the name of the said Kanchana. The first
petitioner has submitted false affidavit before the TNEB. as if the said
Kanchana is the owner of the property and obtained the electricity
connection for the said premises illegally. S.K.Kannan’s name was deleted
during the year 2005-2009 in the Family Card of the first petitioner. It is
pertinent to note that originally, in the nomination form, Ma.Subramanian
has stated that TANSIDCO has allotted the said property under the lease-
cum-sale agreement in favour of his wife Kanchana/A2. Thereafter, he
claims that S.K.Kannan, who was original allottee, has given a letter to
TANSIDCO to transfer allotment in his wife’s name, which is not
permitted under law. TANSIDCO can allot the Labour Tenement only for
labourers and not to any others as per the Government Order and therefore
it is very clear that the petitioners have created the documents to grab the
said Government property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
24/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
6.2 The first petitioner has also grabbed the Labour Tenement
No.3 of TANSIDCO property and demolished the original structure and
constructed house without obtaining proper approval and permission from
the competent authorities. The property of TANSIDCO had been grabbed
by creating forged documents and the officials of the TANSIDCO have
also colluded with the the first petitioner. As on today, the the petitioners
are in possession of the said property. The third respondent made
representation and also reminders to the second respondent seeking action
to recover the property in Labour Tenement No.4, Labour Colony,
Guindy, Chennai-32, from the petitioners by removing the said
encroachment, but till date, TANSIDCO authorities have not taken any
action on the third respondent’s representation. Whenever the third
respondent approaches, TANSIDCO authorities themselves stated that
since the first petitioner is sitting MLA for Saidapet Constituency, they
are unable to recover the said property from the petitioners.
6.3 Therefore, the third respondent had filed a Writ Petition in
W.P.No.10939 of 2018 seeking to remove the encroachments made by the
petitioners herein and after the hot contest between the parties to the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
25/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
writ petition, this Court, by order dated 21.02.2019 in W.P.No.10939 of
2018, disposed of the above said writ petition by directing the respondent
therein to consider the representation, dated 12.04.2018 and pass orders in
accordance with law by providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
6.4 There are manipulation of documents, forgery and fraudulent
documents in grabbing the above said TANSIDCO properties and hence
the third respondent had made detailed complaint on 11.04.2018 before
the Commissioner of Police, which was forwarded to Deputy
Commissioner, Adayar, Chennai, for necessary action and thereafter since
no action was taken on the said complaint, the third respondent had filed
Crl.O.P.No.9706 of 2019 seeking direction to register the complaint,
dated 11.04.2018 and the said petition was disposed of by this Court with
direction to register the complaint. Only thereafter, a case was registered
in Crime No.478 of 2019 on 31.05.2019 for the offences under Sections
420, 464, 465, 466, 468 and 120-B of IPC. Subsequently, the said
complaint was transferred to the first respondent and the same was
registered in FIR No.1 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 420, 464,
465, 466, 468 and 120-B IPC. Thereafter since no action was taken after
registering the case, the third respondent filed Crl.O.P.No.25336 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
26/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
seeking direction to the first respondent therein to file final report in
Crime No.1 of 2019 within the time stipulated by this Court. This Court,
by an order dated 20.09.2019 in Crl.OP.No.25336 of 2019, directed the
first respondent therein to complete the investigation in Crime No.1 of
2019 and file a final report as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter, the
first respondent has filed final report before XI Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.4280 of 2019
by the said learned Magistrate and since the first petitioner is the sitting
MLA for Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, the third respondent herein
filed Crl.O.P.No.2213 of 2020 seeking direction to transfer the case in
C.C.No.4280 of 2019 from the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai to the Special Court, Chennai, constituted for MP and
MLA Court, or the Special Court, Chennai, constituted under the
Prevention of Corruption Act. Pending the above said case, the case was
transferred to the Additional Special Court for MP and MLA case and re-
numbered as C.C.No.39 of 2020.
6.5 The petitioners have claimed that this Court dismissed the
various cases filed by the third respondent, but, it is to be noted that the
third respondent had filed Election Petition No.10 of 2016 as against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
27/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
first petitioner and the said petition was rejected, against which, an appeal
was filed before the Supreme Court of India and the same is pending
consideration. The dismissal of the said Election Petition is no way
connected to the offence committed by the petitioners herein and the
Election Petition is only for purely election dispute and the said dispute
will not have any advantage to suppress all the illegal activities in
grabbing the Government property. Except the said Election Petition,
none of the third respondent’s cases dismissed by this Court as alleged and
claimed by the petitioners. Therefore, it is clear fact that the petitioners
are mis-leading this Court in all aspects and the same cannot be permitted
in any event. The counter filed by TANSIDCO in W.P.No.10939 of 2018
is clearly exposing the fraudulent criminal acts of the petitioners, but in
the present quash-petition, the petitioners have totally misled everything.
Further, the order passed in the Anticipatory Bail in Crl.O.P.No.14802 of
2019, would not give any right for the petitioners to file the present quash
petition and even in the said order, it is categorically held that they are in
possession of the subject matter of the property which itself proves that
the petitioners have committed all the offences as claimed by the
prosecution for the reason that the labour tenements are only provided for
the labourers and not for any other persons like petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
28/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
6.6 The third respondent does not belong to any of the political
party, including AIADMK. The third respondent’s election nomination
papers which were submitted to the Election Officer for Saidapet
Constituency during the Tamil Nadu State Assembly Election, 2016,
would prove the same, since the third respondent had contested the said
election as an independent candidate. The third respondent has no
personal vengeance or mala-fide intention to defame the petitioners and
their own documents would show that they have committed the offences.
The reply of TANSIDCO, which is given under the Right to Information
Act, would clearly prove that the Labour Tenement Nos.3 and 4 have not
at all allotted to the petitioners, but in the sworn affidavit of the first
petitioner filed along with the Nomination, it has been claimed that the
superstructure is vested with the second petitioner and the land belongs to
TANSIDCO. When the land has not been allotted to the second petitioner,
how the first petitioner can declare that the said tenement has been
allotted to the second petitioner. From the above said facts, the mens-rea
of the petitioners in committing the offences, are proved.
6.7 It is to be noted that in the anticipatory bail petition filed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
29/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
the petitioners, it is clearly admitted by the petitioner that they have got
assignment on 16.06.1996 from the said S.K.Kannan, but the said
document has not been produced till date before the Court in any of the
proceedings. The Letter Rc.No.15437/R5/02, dated 13.02.2008 will not
have bearing on the claim of the petitioners that they become the
unauthorised occupants, since the entire forgery, fraudulent act,
manipulation of documents and etc., have been committed by the
petitioners as early as during 1995-1996 itself and the said letter is only
recommendation and the same cannot supersede G.O.No.128, dated
24.03.1997, since there is specific condition that the allotment cannot be
transferred to any other persons, except the legal heirs of original allottee.
6.8 It is to be noted that S.K.Kannan himself is not the owner of
the above said property as per G.O.No.128, dated 24.03.1997. Further, the
labour tenements have been allotted to the poor labourers for their
upliftment and admittedly, neither the first petitioner nor the second
petitioner is labour. Therefore, the entire acts of the petitioners in
grabbing the properties from the poor labourers are against the
Government rules, which are offence under IPC. The second petitioner
was impersonating herself as daughter of S.K.Kannan, but the fact
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
30/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
remains that the second petitioner is the daughter of Sarangapani, which is
very clear from Doc.No.17 the Passport application form of the second
petitioner and therefore, the second petitioner is to be punished under
Section 419 of IPC., and the same penal provision has been added in the
final report in C.C.No.39 of 2020.
6.9 The petitioners have forged several documents and now they
claimed that S.K.Kannan only has given those documents and the said
claim itself shows that there is clear prima-facie triable issues are
involved in the final report. The list of documents relied on by the
prosecution and the statement of witnesses have clearly proved the
offence committed by the petitioners herein. The explanation of the
petitioners can be decided only through the full-fledged trial and
definitely not through the present quash-petition. The offences under
Section 13(i)(d)(i)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, is clearly made out, since the first petitioner has
mutated the property tax documents during his tenure of Mayor of
Chennai Corporation. It is to be noted that the old structures which were
available in Labour Tenement Nos.3 and 4 have been demolished without
proper permission from the Corporation and the houses have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
31/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
constructed without proper approval and sanction from the competent
authorities. In pursuance of several forgery and fraudulent documents, the
petitioners have taken possession of the property, and hence, all the
offences under Sections 420, 464, 465, 466, 468 and r/w Section 120-B of
IPC and Section 13(i)(d)(i)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 are made out. Admittedly, TANSIDCO has not
even accepted the un-authorised occupation of the petitioners and hence,
the petitioners have committed all the above said offences and they are
liable to be punished under the above said Sections.
6.10 The petitioners are making claim that they have no
connections in regard to the document which stands in their names and in
such event, there must be full-fledged trial to be conducted and hence, the
present quash-petition cannot be maintained. The property of TANSIDCO
has been grabbed and whether the petitioners are involved or not to be
decided only through the process of trial by letting the oral and
documentary evidences. It is well settled law that the validity of
sanctioning authority shall be challenged only before the Constitutional
Court and hence if the petitioners have any grievances against the order of
sanction passed by the Speaker, they may approach the Constitutional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
32/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and not before this
Court. The intention of the Legislature is that no Court shall stay the
proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or
irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied
that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice,
and no Court, shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other
ground and no Court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to
any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other
proceedings.
6.11 Time and again, the Honourable Supreme Court in many
number of judgments has passed verdicts stating that, the duty of the
Court is that any anti-corruption law, has to be interpreted and worked out
in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption, and the
High Court should exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., very
very sparingly in corruption cases. Therefore the petitioners/A1 and A2
have to face trial and the case against them need not be quashed.
7 Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
33/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel
for the third respondent and perused the materials available on record.
8 The prosecution has made a specific allegation that the first
petitioner, being a public servant holding the office of the Mayor of
Chennai Corporation, abused his position in order to grab the government
property viz. Tenement No.4 belongs to TANSIDCO, which was
originally allotted to eligible allottee S.K.Kannan. The prosecution alleges
that the first petitioner knowingly residing in the property by creating
false and fabricated documents to make it appear as though the property
stood in the name of his wife (A2), the second petitioner. Furthermore, he
allegedly regularized and legalized Labour Tenement No.4 in the name of
the second petitioner, by obtaining property tax assessment on 20.04.2007
and secured four electricity service connections. The original allottee
S.K.Kannan has no right to alienate the Government land for valuable sale
consideration and thereby the sale consideration itself is null and void and
the documents whatsoever with the petitioners/accused pertaining Labour
Tenement No.4 are all false and forged one.
9 To defend the allegations of the prosecution and to quash the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
34/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
present case against the petitioners, the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners contended that the case is politically motivated with malafide
intention and in fact the original allottee S.K.Kannan, alienated his
tenancy rights over Labour Tenement No.4 in favour of the second
petitioner for valuable sale consideration and hence there is no violation
of any provisions of law. The sanction obtained by the prosecution is
invalid and not in consonance with Section 17A of Prevention of
Corruption Act. Further the owner of the land viz. TANSIDCO did not
prefer any complaint against the petitioners, rather, it stated the petitioners
as ‘unauthorised occupants’ and the counter filed by TANSIDCO, in the
writ petition in W.P.No.10939 of 2018 filed by the defacto complainant
seeking to remove the occupation of the petitioners, would demolish the
entire case of the prosecution. The learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners also placed reliance on the following various decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to support his contentions.
1. (2014) 7 SCC 215 (Rishipal Singh vs. State of UP)
2. (2014) 2 SCC 1 (Lalita Kumari vs. Government of UP)
3. (2020) 2 SCC 338 (Yashwant Sinha and Ors vs. CBI)
4. AIR 1965 SC 444 (Rattan Lal Alias Ram Rattan vs. State of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
35/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
Punjab)
5. (2014) 13 SCC 55 (B.Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh)
6. (2009) 6 SCC 587 (A.Subair vs. State of Kerala)
7. (1983) 1 SCC 177 (T.Barani vs. Henry Ah Hoe & Anr)
8. (2003) 7 SCC 713 (New India Assurance Co. Ltde.,vs. C.Padma
9. (2018) 17 SCC 448 (Nemi Chand vs. State of Rajasthan)
10.(2007) 12 SCC 1 (Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal
11.(1977) 2 SCC 699 ( State of Karnataka vs. LO.Muniswamy
12.(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 (State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal)
13.(2015) 1 LW 673 (R.Thamaraiselvan vs. Government of Tamil
Nadu)
14.(2000) 2 SCC 636 (G.Sagar Suri vs. State of UP)
15.2013 (6) CTC 849 (T.M.Prakash vs. The District Collector
16.(2019) 17 SCC 590 (Gottumukkala Venkata Krishamraj vs. Union
of India)
17.(2000) 2 SCC 536 ( Kohlapur Canesugar Works Ltd., and Anr vs.
Union of India)
18.W.P.No.31640 of 2012 (G. Murugan vs. The Chairman)
19.(2024) 10 SCC 1 (Mineral Area Development Authority vs. SAIL)
20. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 58 (Mariam Fasihuddin vs. State)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
36/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
21.2024 SCC OnLine SC 339 (A.M.Mohan vs. State)
22.2021 SCC OnLine SC 1184 (Parveen vs. State of Haryana)
23. (2018 7 SCC 581 (Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj)
24.(2017) 8 SCC 791 (Rajiv Kumar vs. State of UP)
25.2015 SCC OnLine Mad 2089 (R.Thamaraiselvan vs. State of T.N.)
26.2014 SCC OnLine Mad 777 (G.Murugan vs. Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board)
27. 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 3001 ( T.M.Prakash vs. District Collector)
28.(2007) 12 SCC 1 (Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal)
29.(2003) 3 SCC 641 ( Ram Narayan Popli vs. CBI
30.1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal
10 It is an admitted fact that the petitioners are in occupation of
the disputed property LT No.4, which belongs to TANSIDCO. The
Housing and Urban Development Department issued G.O.Ms.No.128
dated 24.03.1997 to issue house sites to the eligible poor labours at a low
prize, on conditions. As per condition No.7 of the said Government Order,
the petitioners, who are described as unauthorised occupants by
TANSIDCO, are not eligible to get the benefits under the said
Government Order, since neither the petitioners nor their parents are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
37/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
industrial labours. Even as per the admission made by the petitioners, they
took right over the disputed property from the original allottee
S.K.Kannan for valuable sale consideration, which is not permissible as
per the Government Order. Even the original allottee S.K.Kannan has no
right to alienate the property and hence the occupation of the petitioners in
the property is not legal. Even though it is contended by the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the case is politically motivated, it
is to be noted that the first petitioner is a Law Graduate and was holding
very responsible post of Mayor of Chennai Corporation, he knows the
procedures contemplated under Law. Therefore the contention of the
learned Senior Counsel could not be accepted.
11 The learned Senior Counsel contended that preliminary
enquiry was not conducted which is in violation of the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalaitha Kumari stated (supra). As
far as preliminary enquiry is concerned, subsequently the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. Thommandru Hannah
Vijayalakshmi Alias T.H.Vijayalakshmi and another reported in (2021) 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
38/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
SCC 135 has clarified regarding conduct of preliminary enquiry and scope
and object of conducting preliminary enquiry and the relevant portion is
extracted hereunder:
“21. The judgment provides the following conclusions : (Lalita
Kumari case [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P.,
“120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of
the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable
offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a
situation.
120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable
offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary
inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable
offence is disclosed or not.
***
120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity
or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain
whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to
be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be
made are as under:
***
(d) Corruption cases
***https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
39/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all
conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.”
22. The Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari case [Lalita
Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1, paras 31-35, 37-39, 83-
86, 89-92, 93-96, 101-105, 106-107, 111-112, 114-119 and 120 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] thus held that a preliminary enquiry is
not mandatory when the information received discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence. Even when it is conducted, the
scope of a preliminary enquiry is not to ascertain the veracity of
the information, but only whether it reveals the commission of a
cognizable offence. The need for a preliminary enquiry will depend
on the facts and circumstances of each case. As an illustration,
“corruption cases” fall in that category of cases where a
preliminary enquiry “may be made”. The use of the expression
“may be made” goes to emphasise that holding a preliminary
enquiry is not mandatory. Dwelling on the CBI Manual, the
Constitution Bench held that : (i) it is not a statute enacted by the
legislature; and (ii) it is a compendium of administrative orders for
the internal guidance of CBI.
23. The judgment in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P.,
(2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] was analysed by a
three-Judge Bench of this Court in Yashwant Sinha [Yashwant
Sinha v. CBI, (2020) 2 SCC 338] where the Court refused to grant
the relief of registration of an FIR based on information submittedhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
40/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020by the appellant-informant. In his concurring opinion, K.M.
Joseph, J. described that a barrier to granting the relief of
registration of an FIR against a public figure would be the
observations of this Court in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State
of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] noting that a
preliminary enquiry may be desirable before doing so. Joseph, J.
observed : (Yashwant Sinha case [Yashwant Sinha v. CBI, (2020) 2
SCC 338, paras 114-115 and 117] , SCC pp. 385 & 387-89, paras
108, 110, 112 & 114)
“108. Para 120.6 [of Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of
U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] ] deals with the
type of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made.
Corruption cases are one of the categories of cases where a
preliminary inquiry may be conducted. …
***
110. In para 117 of Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P.,
(2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] , this Court referred to
the decision in P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras [P.
Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri)
240] and took the view that in the context of offences related to
corruption in the said decision, the Court has expressed a need for
a preliminary inquiry before proceeding against public servants.
***
112. In Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2
SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] , one of the contentions which
was pressed before the Court was that in certain situations,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
41/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
preliminary inquiry is necessary. In this regard, attention of the
Court was drawn to CBI Crime Manual. …
***
114. The Constitution Bench inLalita Kumari [Lalita
Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524]
, had before it, the CBI Crime Manual. It also considered the
decision of this Court inP. Sirajuddin [P. Sirajuddin v. State of
Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240] which declared
the necessity for preliminary inquiry in offences relating to
corruption. Therefore, the petitioners may not be justified in
approaching this Court seeking the relief of registration of an FIR
and investigation on the same as such. This is for the reason that
one of the exceptions where immediate registration of FIR may not
be resorted to, would be a case pointing fingers at a public figure
and raising the allegation of corruption. This Court also has
permitted preliminary inquiry when there is delay, laches in
initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over three months. A
preliminary inquiry, it is to be noticed in para 120.7 of Lalita
Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1
SCC (Cri) 524] , is to be completed within seven days.”(emphasis
supplied
24. The decision of a two-Judge Bench in Managipet [State of
Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri)
702] thereafter has noted that while the decision in Lalita
Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1
SCC (Cri) 524] held that a preliminary enquiry was desirable in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
42/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
cases of alleged corruption, that does not vest a right in the
accused to demand a preliminary enquiry. Whether a preliminary
enquiry is required or not will depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case, and it cannot be said to be mandatory
requirement without which a case cannot be registered against the
accused in corruption cases. Hemant Gupta, J. held thus :
(Managipet case [State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC
87, paras 33-34 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] , SCC pp. 103-105,
paras 28-30 & 32-34)
“28. InLalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2
SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] the Court has laid down the
cases in which a preliminary inquiry is warranted, more so, to
avoid an abuse of the process of law rather than vesting any right
in favour of an accused. Herein, the argument made was that if a
police officer is doubtful about the veracity of an accusation, he
has to conduct a preliminary inquiry and that in certain
appropriate cases, it would be proper for such officer, on the
receipt of a complaint of a cognizable offence, to satisfy himself
that prima facie, the allegations levelled against the accused in the
complaint are credible. …
29. The Court concluded that the registration of an FIR is
mandatory under Section 154 of the Code if the information
discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible in such a situation. …
30. It must be pointed out that this Court has not held that a
preliminary inquiry is a must in all cases. A preliminary enquiryhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
43/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020may be conducted pertaining to matrimonial disputes/family
disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases,
corruption cases, etc. The judgment of this Court inLalita
Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1
SCC (Cri) 524] does not state that proceedings cannot be initiated
against an accused without conducting a preliminary inquiry.
***
32. … The scope and ambit of a preliminary inquiry being
necessary before lodging an FIR would depend upon the facts of
each case. There is no set format or manner in which a
preliminary inquiry is to be conducted. The objective of the same is
only to ensure that a criminal investigation process is not initiated
on a frivolous and untenable complaint. That is the test laid down
inLalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] .
33. In the present case, the FIR itself shows that the information
collected is in respect of disproportionate assets of the accused
officer. The purpose of a preliminary inquiry is to screen wholly
frivolous and motivated complaints, in furtherance of acting fairly
and objectively. Herein, relevant information was available with
the informant in respect of prima facie allegations disclosing a
cognizable offence. Therefore, once the officer recording the FIR
is satisfied with such disclosure, he can proceed against the
accused even without conducting any inquiry or by any other
manner on the basis of the credible information received by him. It
cannot be said that the FIR is liable to be quashed for the reason
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
44/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
that the preliminary inquiry was not conducted. The same can only
be done if upon a reading of the entirety of an FIR, no offence is
disclosed. Reference in this regard, is made to a judgment of this
Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri)
426] wherein, this Court held inter alia that where the allegations
made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused and
also where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a
view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
34. Therefore, we hold that the preliminary inquiry warranted
inLalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] is not required to be mandatorily
conducted in all corruption cases. It has been reiterated by this
Court in multiple instances that the type of preliminary inquiry to
be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case. There are no fixed parameters on which such inquiry can be
said to be conducted. Therefore, any formal and informal
collection of information disclosing a cognizable offence to the
satisfaction of the person recording the FIR is sufficient.”
(emphasis supplied
25. In Charansingh [Charansingh v. State of Maharashtra, (2021)
5 SCC 469 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 617 : (2021) 2 SCC (L&S) 52] ,https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
45/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020the two-Judge Bench was confronted with a challenge to a decision
to hold a preliminary enquiry. The Court adverted to the ACB
Manual in Maharashtra and held that a statement provided by an
individual in an “open inquiry” in the nature of a preliminary
enquiry would not be confessional in nature and hence, the
individual cannot refuse to appear in such an inquiry on that basis.
M.R. Shah, J. writing for the two-Judge Bench consisting also of
one of us (D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) held : (SCC pp. 479-82, paras
11, 14 & 15)
“11. However, whether in a case of a complaint against a public
servant regarding accumulating the assets disproportionate to his
known sources of income, which can be said to be an offence under
Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, an
enquiry at pre-FIR stage is permissible or not and/or it is desirable
or not, if any decision is required, the same is governed by the
decision of this Court in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of
U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] .
11.1. While considering the larger question, whether police is
duty-bound to register an FIR and/or it is mandatory for
registration of FIR on receipt of information disclosing a
cognizable offence and whether it is mandatory or the police
officer has option, discretion or latitude of conducting preliminary
enquiry before registering FIR, this Court in Lalita Kumari [Lalita
Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524]
has observed that it is mandatory to register an FIR on receipt of
information disclosing a cognizable offence and it is the general
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
46/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
rule. However, while holding so, this Court has also considered
the situations/cases in which preliminary enquiry is
permissible/desirable. While holding that the registration of FIR is
mandatory under Section 154, if the information discloses
commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry is
permissible in such a situation and the same is the general rule
and must be strictly complied with, this Court has carved out
certain situations/cases in which the preliminary enquiry is held to
be permissible/desirable before registering/lodging of an FIR. It is
further observed that if the information received does not disclose
a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a
preliminary enquiry may be conducted to ascertain whether
cognizable offence is disclosed or not. It is observed that as to
what type and in which cases the preliminary enquiry is to be
conducted will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
case.
***
14. In the context of offences relating to corruption, in para 117
in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] , this Court also took note of the decision
of this Court in P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras [P.
Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri)
240] in which case this Court expressed the need for a preliminary
enquiry before proceeding against public servants.
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
47/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
15.1. Thus, an enquiry at pre-FIR stage is held to be permissible
and not only permissible but desirable, more particularly in cases
where the allegations are of misconduct of corrupt practice
acquiring the assets/properties disproportionate to his known
sources of income. After the enquiry/enquiry at pre-registration of
FIR stage/preliminary enquiry, if, on the basis of the material
collected during such enquiry, it is found that the complaint is
vexatious and/or there is no substance at all in the complaint, the
FIR shall not be lodged. However, if the material discloses prima
facie a commission of the offence alleged, the FIR will be lodged
and the criminal proceedings will be put in motion and the further
investigation will be carried out in terms of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Therefore, such a preliminary enquiry would be
permissible only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is
disclosed or not and only thereafter FIR would be registered.
Therefore, such a preliminary enquiry would be in the interest of
the alleged accused also against whom the complaint is made.
15.2. Even as held by this Court in CBI v. Tapan Kumar
Singh [CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh, (2003) 6 SCC 175 : 2003 SCC
(Cri) 1305] , a GD entry recording the information by the
informant disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence can
be treated as FIR in a given case and the police has the power and
jurisdiction to investigate the same. However, in an appropriate
case, such as allegations of misconduct of corrupt practice by a
public servant, before lodging the first information report and
further conducting the investigation, if the preliminary enquiry is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
48/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
conducted to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed
or not, no fault can be found. Even at the stage of registering the
FIR, what is required to be considered is whether the information
given discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and the
information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to
suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. At this stage, it is
enough if the police officer on the basis of the information given
suspects the commission of a cognizable offence, and not that he
must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been
committed. Despite the proposition of law laid down by this Court
in a catena of decisions that at the stage of lodging the first
information report, the police officer need not be satisfied or
convinced that a cognizable offence has been committed,
considering the observations made by this Court inP.
Sirajuddin [P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 :
1970 SCC (Cri) 240] and considering the observations by this
Court inLalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2
SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] before lodging the FIR, an
enquiry is held and/or conducted after following the procedure as
per Maharashtra State Anti-Corruption & Prohibition Intelligence
Bureau Manual, it cannot be said that the same is illegal and/or
the police officer, Anti-Corruption Bureau has no jurisdiction
and/or authority and/or power at all to conduct such an enquiry at
pre-registration of FIR stage.”(emphasis supplied
26. Hence, all these decisions do not mandate that a preliminary
enquiry must be conducted before the registration of an FIR inhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
49/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020corruption cases. An FIR will not stand vitiated because a
preliminary enquiry has not been conducted. The decision
in Managipet [State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87
: (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] dealt specifically with a case of
disproportionate assets. In that context, the judgment holds that
where relevant information regarding prima facie allegations
disclosing a cognizable offence is available, the officer recording
the FIR can proceed against the accused on the basis of the
information without conducting a preliminary enquiry.
27. This conclusion is also supported by the judgment of another
Constitution Bench in K. Veeraswami [K. Veeraswami v. Union of
India, (1991) 3 SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734] . The judgment was
in context of Section 5(1)(e) of the old Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1947, which is similar to Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. It was
argued that : (i) a public servant must be afforded an opportunity to
explain the alleged disproportionate assets before an investigating
officer; (ii) this must then be included and explained by the
investigating officer while filing the charge-sheet; and (iii) the
failure to do so would render the charge-sheet invalid. Rejecting
this submission, the Constitution Bench held that doing so would
elevate the investigating officer to the role of an enquiry officer or a
Judge and that their role was limited only to collect material in
order to ascertain whether the alleged offence has been committed
by the public servant.”12 In view of the above settled position, this Court is of the view
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
50/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020that no preliminary enquiry is required, as the matter pertains to
corruption. Particularly, in the case on hand, the allegation is that the
property viz. Labour Tenement No.4, which is meant for labourers, was
fraudulently obtained. Furthermore, the first petitioner, while holding the
post of Mayor, by abusing his official position, obtained property tax
assessment, and using the same, he secured four electricity service
connections in the name of his wife A2, by misusing the official position
as Mayor.
13 As far as the contention regarding the validity of sanction is
concerned, mere defect in sanction would not affect the case of the
prosecution and in this regard it is useful to refer the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 15 SCC 537 in the case of
V.Padmanabham vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors and the
relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“8. So far as the defect in sanction aspect is concerned, the
circular on which the High Court has placed reliance needs to be
noted. The Circular in question is dated 9-2-1988 the relevant
portion reads as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
51/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020The Government also decided that before giving approval of
prosecutions, the Principal Secretary, Law and Legal
Department will obtain the advice of department concerned.”
A bare perusal of the paragraph shows that before giving
approval for prosecution, advice of the department concerned
was necessary. The question arises whether the absence of
advice renders the sanction inoperative. Undisputedly the
sanction has been given by the Department of Law and
Legislative Affairs. The State Government had granted
approval of the prosecution. As noted above, the sanction was
granted in the name of the Governor of the State by the
Additional Secretary, Department of Law and Legislative
Affairs. The advice at the most is an interdepartmental matter.
9. Further, the High Court has failed to consider the effect of
Section 19(3) of the Act. The said provision makes it clear
that no finding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge
shall be reversed or altered by a court of appeal on the
ground of absence of/or any error, omission or irregularity in
sanction required under sub-section (1) of Section 19 unless
in the opinion of the court a failure of justice has in fact been
occasioned thereby.
10. In the instant case there was not even a whisper or
pleading about any failure of justice. The stage when this
failure is to be established is yet to be reached since the casehttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
52/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020is at the stage of framing of charge whether or not failure has
in fact been occasioned was to be determined once the trial
commenced and evidence was led. In this connection the
decisions of this Court in State v. T. Venkatesh
Murthy [(2004) 7 SCC 763 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 2140] and
in Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab [(2007) 1 SCC 1 :
(2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 193] need to be noted. That being so the
High Court’s view quashing the proceedings cannot be
sustained and the State’s appeal deserves to be allowed which
we direct.
11. Coming to the appeal filed by the accused one of the
questions is whether the investigating officer was authorised
to conduct the investigation. The investigation was carried on
by the duly authorised officer, namely, the Deputy
Superintendent of Police under Section 17(c) of the Act. The
broader issues raised need not be looked into. The function of
investigation was merely to collect evidence and any
irregularity and illegality in the course of collection of
evidence can hardly be considered by itself to affect the
legality of trial by a competent court of the offence so
investigated.”
14 The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the decision reported in
(2004) 7 SCC 763 in the case of State by Police Inspector vs. T.Venkatesh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
53/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
Murthy, further held as follows:
7. A combined reading of sub-sections (3) and (4) makes the
position clear that notwithstanding anything contained in
the Code no finding, sentence and order passed by a Special
Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal,
confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or
any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required
under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that court a
failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
8. Clause (b) of sub-section (3) is also relevant. It shows that
no court shall stay the proceedings under the Act on the
ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction
granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such
error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of
justice.
9. Sub-section (4) postulates that in determining under sub-
section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or
irregularity in the sanction has occasioned or resulted in a
failure of justice, the court shall have regard to the fact
whether the objection could and should have been raised at
any earlier stage in the proceedings.
10. Explanation appended to the section is also of
significance. It provides, that for the purpose of Section 19,
error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
54/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
15 Yet another decision reported in (2023) 1 SCC 329 in the
case of Vijay Rajmohan vs CBI (Anti Corruption Branch) held as follows:
22. Statutory provisions requiring sanction before
prosecution either under Section 197CrPC or under Section
97 of the PC Act also intend to serve the very same purpose
of protecting a public servant. These protections are not
available to other citizens because of the inherent
vulnerabilities of a public servant and the need to protect
them. However, the said protection is neither a shield
against dereliction of duty nor an absolute immunity against
corrupt practices. The limited immunity or bar is only
subject to a sanction by the appointing authority.
16 The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the recent judgment in the case
of State vs. Easwaran (2025 INSC 397)held that the High Court
committed an error in quashing the prosecution on the grounds that the
sanction to prosecute was illegal and invalid. The Hon’ble Apex Court has
reiterated that the validity of a sanction is an issue that must be examined
during the course of trial.
17 Admittedly in the case on hand, the order of sanction was
passed by the Speaker and if the petitioners are aggrieved over the same,
they should have approached the Court by invoking Article 226 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
55/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
Constitution of India. Furthermore, the criminal case has now reached the
stage of framing charges and the petitioners can very well raise their
defence before the trial Court and hence such a challenge cannot be
entertained at the threshold, especially on a mere technicality, the criminal
case cannot be set aside and their defence also remains open before the
trial Court. Therefore the contention of the learned Senior Counsel with
regard to defect in sanction is not acceptable and the decisions relied on
by the learned Senior Counsel in this aspect are not applicable to the case
on hand.
18 It is the main contention of the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioners that TANSIDCO, who is the owner of the land has not filed
any complaint against the petitioners and the counter filed by TANSIDCO
in the Writ Petition filed by the defacto complainant to remove the
petitioners from the property, would demolish the case of the prosecution.
A bare perusal of the said counter filed by TANSIDCO would show that
the petitioners are not eligible to get sale deed in their favour and they are
considered as ‘unauthorised occupants’. The proposal to regularize the
unauthorised occupation has been sent to Government and the
Government by its letter dated 14.12.2017 directed TANSIDCO to verify
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
56/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
and establish each of the unauthorised occupant as labour with specific
proof such as EPF and ESI, but none of unauthorised occupants including
the petitioners have submitted any proof as required by the Government.
Further in the counter TANSIDCO has clearly stated that without NOC
from TANSIDCO and requisite approval for putting up the construction,
the petitioners, who occupied Tenement No.3 demolished the original
building and reconstructed with adjoining Tenement No.4, which was
originally allotted to S.K.Kannan.
19 Further it is an admitted fact that the said S.K.Kannan
requested TANSIDCO for allotment of Tenement No.4 in favour of the
second petitioner/A2 Tmt.S.Kanchana stating that she is his only legal
heir. But, in document No.17 passport application form of the second
petitioner, she clearly mentioned her father’s name as ‘Sarangabani’.
Therefore the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel that the
petitioners’ occupation is not illegal and the allegations of the prosecution
is motivated one, are not acceptable.
20 The learned Senior Counsel contended that this complaint by
political opponent is for malafide reason, which cannot be entertained. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
57/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
this regard it is useful to refer the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691 in the case of State of M.P. Vs Awadh
Kishore Gupta and Ors. and the relevant portion reads as follows:
“8. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a
case of this nature is an exception and not the rule. The
section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It
only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed
before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three
circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be
exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the
Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to
otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor
desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern
the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment
dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may
possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart
from express provisions of law which are necessary for
proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them
by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the
section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent
powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or
criminal, possess, in the absence of any express provision, as
inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are
necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in the course
of administration of justice on the principle quando lexhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
58/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa
esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it
gives him that without which it cannot exist). While
exercising powers under the section, the Court does not
function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent
jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be
exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only
when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid
down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito
justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the
court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is
made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the
court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse
of process of the court to allow any action which would
result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In
exercise of the powers, court would be justified to quash any
proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts
to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these
proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When
no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may
examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to
be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to
assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any
offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in
toto.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
59/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
9. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960
Cri LJ 1239] this Court summarized some categories of
cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to
quash the proceedings:
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or
complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is
no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly
or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
10. In dealing with the last case, it is important to bear in
mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal
evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly
inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where
there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may
not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not
ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in
question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable
appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is
the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt,
should not be an instrument of oppression or needless
harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in
exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
60/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest
it would be an instrument in the hands of a private
complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person
needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument
handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and
bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power
under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases
where the High Court may exercise its power under it
relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set
out in some detail by this Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC
(Cri) 426] . A note of caution was, however, added that the
power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the
rarest of the rare cases. The illustrative categories indicated
by this Court are as follows : (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102)
“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
61/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2)
of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which
a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
62/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.”
11. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court
under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very
plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise.
Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of
this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power
should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The
High Court being the highest court of a State should
normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case
where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so,
when the evidence has not been collected and produced
before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or
legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true
perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-
and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which
the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of
quashing the proceedings at any stage. (See Janata
Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri)
36 : AIR 1993 SC 892] and Raghubir Saran (Dr) v. State of
Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1 : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 1] .) It would not be
proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the
complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to
determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on
such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings
are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
63/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be
proceeded with. In proceedings instituted on complaint,
exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is
called for only in a case where the complaint does not
disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive.
If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute
the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the
Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in
exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be
meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out
whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The
complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on
consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement
made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the
offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to
show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious,
in that event there would be no justification for interference
by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the
police station and an offence is registered, then the mala
fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is
the material collected during the investigation and evidence
led in the court which decide the fate of the accused person.
The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no
consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing
the proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
64/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
21 Therefore while exercising powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. the Court cannot function as a Court of appeal or revision, and
the inherent jurisdiction, even though wide, it has to be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with caution. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that the High Court, while dealing with the petition seeking quash,
cannot appreciate the evidence, but can evaluate material and documents
on records to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction about the existence
of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Section
should not be an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a
prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The Court has to see
whether there exist prima facie allegations and sufficient grounds to
proceed against the accused.
22 This Court carefully has gone through the allegations, charge
sheet and the documents, which reveal that there is prima facie materials
to proceed further. Admittedly, the prosecution alleges that the
petitioners conspired to unlawfully acquire property meant for labourers
viz., Labour Tenement No.4. As part of this conspiracy, S.K.Kannan
submitted a request to TANSIDCO for the transfer of the allotment of
Labour Tenement No.4 in favour of A2. The first petitioner, by abusing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
65/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
his official position, ensured that the property tax for the labour tenement
was assessed in the name of A2 and subsequently paid the property tax
and obtained four electricity service connections. While engaging in
these activities, they involved S.K.Kannan, who was claimed to be the
father-in-law of the first petitioner. However, the prosecution’s stance is
that, according to the legal heir certificate (Document No.18, dated
17.06.2016), the said S.K.Kannan had five daughters and one son,
wherein Kanchana, the second petitioner, has not been mentioned as a
legal heir. As such, the prosecution alleges that the entire conspiracy was
carried out with the knowledge of the first petitioner, who, at that time,
was holding the post of Mayor. It is also apposite to mention that the
validity and veracity of the documents can only be tested during trial.
Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions observed that
invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not automatic and it should be exercised
very very sparingly especially when the offence is under the Prevention
of Corruption Act. Once the complaint discloses prima facie allegations,
the malafide intention of the complainant is of no consequence. There is
no quarrel with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which
are relied on by the learned Senior Counsel, but, however, considering
the facts and circumstances of this case and decisions cited supra, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
66/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
cases relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners are not
applicable to the facts of the present case on hand.
23 Furthermore, the grounds raised by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners are all matter for trial and the case cannot be
quashed on that grounds and this is not the fit case to quash.
24 In view of the foregoing observations and reasons, this
Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioners can
take all their defence during trial. The trial Court is directed to frame
charges against the accused, if not done sofar, and proceed with the
matter in accordance with law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
28.03.2025
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
cgi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
67/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
To
1. The Additional Special Court for Trial of Cases related to Members
of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamilnadu.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Organized Crime Uni-II,
Crime Branch CID, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
68/69
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
P.VELMURUGAN, J.,
cgi
Pre-Delivery Orders in
Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020
28.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:03 pm )
69/69
[ad_1]
Source link