Madras High Court
K.Manickam vs The Directorate Of Vigilance And on 2 September, 2021
Crl.OP.No.9749/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 02.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Crl.OP.No.9749/2021
[Video Conferencing]
K.Manickam ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The Directorate of Vigilance and
Anti Corruption, No.293,
MKN Road, Alandur,
Chennai 600 016.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Vigilance and Anti Corruption
New Bus Stand Back Side
Perambalur [PO]
Perambalur.
3.S.Saravanan ... Respondents
Prayer : - Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to call
for the records of the 2nd respondent dated 26.12.2019 on the file of
Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Perambalur and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Ms.Yogalakshmi
1
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.OP.No.9749/2021
For R1 & R2 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Government Advocate
[Crl.Side]
ORDER
(1) The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to
interfere with investigation pursuant to a FIR registered in Crime
No.4/2019 on 26.12.2019 by the Department of Vigilance and Anti
Corruption, Perambalur.
(2) Towards the end of the arguments, Ms.Yogalakshmi, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner stated that before the Madurai Bench of
this Court, the very same petitioner had filed Crl.OP.
[MD]No.3785/2021 seeking expeditious investigation of the very
same informations given in Crime No.4/2019.
(3) On the one hand, the petitioner appears to have approached the
Madurai Bench of this Court seeking investigation of the FIR and on
the other hand, before this Court, the present petition has been filed
seeking interference with the FIR. This cannot be permitted. The
learned counsel made a vain attempt to state that the averments given
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.OP.No.9749/2021
in the complaint which was reduced in the form of a FIR, would not
stand the scrutiny during the course of trial. It is stated that the
averments are so improbable. But since the investigation is in
progress and a direction had already been given by the Madurai
Bench in the aforesaid Crl.OP [MD] No.3785/2021 to complete the
investigation and file a Final Report within a period of six months, it
would be extremely inappropriate on my part to examine the facts.
(4) Be that as it may, the petitioner herein is facing investigation for the
alleged commission of the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. Naturally, necessary averments would revolve
around demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe amount. These
are all aspects which will have to be examined by the Investigating
Officer primarily on examination of various witnesses and on
collection of documents relating to the same and thereafter, the
statements recorded of those witnesses, will have to be again tested
during the course of trial. The petitioner will have every opportunity
to do so and at this stage, when investigation is in progress, with
respect to a cognizable offence, I am not prepared to interfere with the
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.OP.No.9749/2021
same and I am also not prepared to examine the facts because any
observation would certainly weigh in the minds of the Investigating
Officer and also of the learned Judge, who ultimately tries the case.
(5) I am also strengthened by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India reported in 1992 SCC [Crl.] 426 [State of Haryana and
Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others], wherein the Apex Court had
very clearly laid down the guidelines which the High Courts should
adopt before interfering with the FIR. It had been very clearly stated
that the averments may or may not be true, but, that is not what is to
be examined by the Court and what is to be examined by the Court is
whether the averments made in the FIR make out a cognizable
offence. The veracity of those averments will be the subject matter of
trial. But if the averments make out a cognizable offence, then
interference with the investigation by the High Court has been very
strongly come down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and
necessary guidelines have also been laid down.
(6) Let the investigation continue and let the Investigating Officer file a
Final Report in accordance with the directions given in Crl.OP [MD]
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.OP.No.9749/2021
No.3785/2021.
(7) With the above observations, the present Criminal Original Petition
stands dismissed.
02.09.2021
AP
Internet : Yes
To
1.The Directorate of Vigilance and
Anti Corruption, No.293,
MKN Road, Alandur,
Chennai 600 016.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Vigilance and Anti Corruption
New Bus Stand Back Side
Perambalur [PO]
Perambalur.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Chennai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.OP.No.9749/2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
AP
Crl.OP.No.9749/2021
02.09.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
