Madras High Court
Jasmine Latha vs The State Rep. By on 7 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20871 of 2021 & Crl.RC(MD)No.877 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07/04/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20871 of 2021
and
Crl.RC(MD)No.877 of 2021
(1).Crl.OP(MD)No.20871 of 2021:-
Jasmine Latha : Petitioner/Respondent
Vs.
1.The State rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Nagercoil.
(Crime No.11 of 2012) : R1/Complainant
2.Mr.D.Robin Gunasingh
The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. : R2/De-facto complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under
section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to
the case in Spl.SC No.3 of 2015 pending on the file of the
Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari
District @ Nagercoil and quash the same as against the
petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand
For Respondents : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Addl. Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20871 of 2021 & Crl.RC(MD)No.877 of 2021
(2).Crl.RC(MD)No.877 of 2021:-
Jasmine Latha : Petitioner/Respondent/
Accused
Vs.
2.Mr.D.Robin Gunasingh
The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Nagercoil,Kanyakumari District.: Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C against the order passed by the
Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari
District @ Nagercoil, in Crl.M.P.No.4432 of 2021 in Spl.S.C
No.3 of 2015, vide order, dated 26/10/2021 by dismissing
the petition filed by the petitioner under section 319
Cr.P.C for adding the additional accused persons.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Addl. Public Prosecutor
COMMON ORDER
The criminal original petition is filed seeking
quashment of the case in Spl.SC No.3 of 2015 pending on the
file of the Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil, whereas the criminal
revision has been filed against the order passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20871 of 2021 & Crl.RC(MD)No.877 of 2021
Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari
District @ Nagercoil, in Crl.M.P.No.4432 of 2021 in Spl.S.C
No.3 of 2015, dated 26/10/2021.
2.The petitioner, in both the criminal original
petition and the revision petition is the sole accused, who
is facing the charges for the offences under sections 409,
420, 465, 468, 471 and 471(A) IPC and section 13(2) r/w
13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3.The case of the prosecution is that the Government
of India introduced a scheme called 'Agricultural
Technology Management Agency (ATMA), which is otherwise
popularly known as 'Modern Technology Scheme' in order to
educate the farmers on the modern technology and imparting
upon them to engage in the modern farming technology. The
Agricultural Officer was put on to make the scheme
successful; This petitioner was working as 'Agricultural
Officer' during the relevant time in Kanyakumari District.
In the above said scheme, the Agriculture Officers were
entrusted with fund for the successful completion of the
scheme. The scheme has to be carried on under the head of
the District Collectors. In the above said scheme, Rs.
2,41,000/- was allocated and this petitioner was put on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20871 of 2021 & Crl.RC(MD)No.877 of 2021
above said task, as noted above This petitioner alleged to
have created forged documents, as if the entire amount has
been utilised for the purpose of implementing the above
said scheme. On that ground, the case has been registered
under sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 471(A) IPC and
section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and final report has also been filed before the
concerned court. This is the case in brief.
4.The petitioner already moved a discharge application
before the Special Court in Crl.M.P.No.4432 of 2021. Before
this court, at that time of hearing, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner has restricted his prayer and
relief, that a direction may be issued to the Special Court
to expedite the trial process within a stipulated time. So
on that ground, without going into the merits of the case,
this court has passed the above said order directing the
Special Court to complete the trial process within a period
of 6 months from the date of receipt of the order copy. It
has also been specifically ordered that if the petitioner
adopts any dilatory tactics, stringent steps must be taken
to secure the presence of the petitioner. After the above
said direction, the trial has commenced and three witnesses
have been examined on the side of the prosecution and those
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20871 of 2021 & Crl.RC(MD)No.877 of 2021
persons were also cross examined. At that time, this
petitioner moved Crl.MP No.4432 of 2021 before the trial
court for adding two other officials as co-accused. In the
petition, it has been stated that one Retired Joint
Director of Agriculture, Nagamani Pillai and K.P.Sree
Kumar, retired Deputy Director for Agriculture as
additional accused. The above said Nagamani Pillai was
examined as PW5. The trial court, after going through the
evidence of PW1, PW4 and PW5 and on perusal of the records,
came to the conclusion that the petitioner lacks locus
standi to maintain the petition. Apart from that, it has
been held that even on merits, those persons cannot be
summoned or included as co-accused. By observing so, it
was dismissed, on 26/10/2001. Against which, the present
criminal revision has been filed. Simultaneously on the
very same facts, she has also filed criminal original
petition, which are jointly heard and disposed of today.
5.Heard both sides.
6.Even at the out set, without going into the other
aspects, this court is of the considered view that the
petition has been filed by the petitioner in criminal
original petition seeking quashment is a clear abuse of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20871 of 2021 & Crl.RC(MD)No.877 of 2021
process of the court. As mentioned earlier, he has
exhausted the remedy by filing revision before this court
and thought it fit to restrict his prayer for direction.
After availing that opportunity and choice, now she says
that she is entitled for quashment of the entire
prosecution, on the basis of the evidence that has been
recorded by the trial court so far. This court is not in a
position to understand the stand of the petitioner.
8.When this matter was argued, this court has also
made a question to the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner as to how the court can be taken for a ride.
For that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
on record would submit that since during the course of
evidence, no material has been placed on record, for
further prosecution the petitioner is entitled for the
relief.
7.Absolutely, I find no such circumstances here to
quash the proceedings against the petitioner. The trial is
in the mid way. If the petitioner wants to blame the higher
authorities for the entire episode, it is also for the
trial court to make all those observations at the time of
judgment. The petitioner failed to utilise the opportunity
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20871 of 2021 & Crl.RC(MD)No.877 of 2021
of cross examination and he cannot pick and canvass the
point from the cross examination and argue that he is
entitled for quashment. Such an attempt is not permissible
under law. Even though the locus standi of the petitioner
has been negatived by the trial court, the learned counsel
for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment in the case
of Lok Ram Vs. Nihal Singh and another [(2006)10 SCC 192],
wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that the petition under section 319 Cr.P.C by the accused
is maintainable. Even though the stand of the trial court
on this aspect may not be correct, in the light of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. But the fact remains that the trial
court has also considered the merit of this petition.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would insist that absolutely the scheme was carried out and
the funds were utilised at the instance and advise,
direction and cooperation of the above said two higher
officials. So absolutely, there was no scope for him to
act independently; The vouchers have been supervised,
signed only by the competent authority.
9.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
submit that disciplinary proceedings has been initiated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20871 of 2021 & Crl.RC(MD)No.877 of 2021
against those officials for dereliction of duty. According
to him, proper action has been initiated against them. But
during the course of investigation, the involvement with
regard to misappropriation, forgery of documents and
manipulation were not found out. So they were left off. I
am of the considered view that it is a matter for
consideration by the trial court court at the time of
judgment. So, I am not expressing any opinion that has been
alleged against the accused persons. Even after scrutiny of
the records, the trial court can exercise power under
section 319 Cr.P.C at any point of time. So, absolutely I
find no merit in these two petitions. Accordingly, both the
petitions are liable to be dismissed.
10.In the result, these petitions are dismissed.
07/04/2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
er
Note: In view of the
present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20871 of 2021 & Crl.RC(MD)No.877 of 2021
be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the
order that is presented
is the correct copy,
shall be the
responsibility of the
advocate/litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20871 of 2021 & Crl.RC(MD)No.877 of 2021
To,
1.The Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial
Magistrate,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20871 of 2021 & Crl.RC(MD)No.877 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
er
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20871 of 2021
and
Crl.RC(MD)No.877 of 2021
07/04/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
