Madras High Court
M.Elangovan vs State Rep. By on 4 July, 2023
Crl.O.P(MD)No.12306 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.07.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.12306 of 2020 and
Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.7355 of 2020 and 1861 of 2021
M.Elangovan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Karaikudi North Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
(Crime No. 813 of 2020)
2.J.Jeyakanthan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records relating to the impugned FIR registered in Crime No.
813 of 2020, on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A. Robinson
for Mr.M.Saravanan
For 1st Respondent : Mr.T. Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.12306 of 2020
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.391 of 2020 on
the file of the Sakkottai Police Station, Sivagangai District.
Subsequently, it was transferred to the Karaikudi North Police Station
and re-numbered as Crime No.813 of 2020. Now, he has filed the
present petition to quash the impugned FIR registered in Crime No.813
of 2020.
2. The main allegation made against the petitioner in First
Information Report is that he has not properly carried out the Covid-19,
Pandemic Prevention duties and he was absent from duty for 10 days
without any intimation. Further, the petitioner failed to hand over the
receipt books and other records to the Vice President of the panchayat
and he failed to disburse the salary to the Over Head Tank Operators and
Street Light Maintenance workers.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that entire reading of First Information Report, there was no
offence made out and also the charge memo issued for the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.12306 of 2020
allegation was quashed by this Court in W.P(MD).No.16997 of 2020 by
order, dated 26.10.2022.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that there is material available to continue the investigation.
Hence, the Director General of Police transferred the case to the
Vigilance Department and the same was pending for consideration
before the Vigilance Department.
5. This Court considered the rival submissions made by both
side counsel and perused the materials and the precedents relied upon by
them.
6. This Court perused the FIR as well as the connected
documents and charge memo issued against the petitioner. The allegation
against the petitioner in First information Report as well as the charge
memo is similar. This Court quashed the charge memo and specifically
held that the charges are not make out any mis-conduct. Further, the
charges and the incriminating materials filed along with the charge memo
did not make out the any case for disciplinary proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.12306 of 2020
7. Perusal of First Information Report, this Court does not
find any material averment to constitute any offence. Further, the
allegation is that he did not hand over the charge after the transfer. But
the records shows that he already handed over the documents and also
the same was duly acknowledged by the competent person.
8. Apart from that no other allegations made against the
petitioner. In addition to that the Department proceedings for the same
set of allegations initiated by the Department on the basis of the same
material is quashed by this Court in W.P(MD).No.16997 of 2020. In the
said circumstances, it is relevant to follow the principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. CBI,
reported in (2020) 9 SCC 636 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
as follows:
13. It finally concluded: (Radheshyam Kejriwal
case [Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 :
(2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721] , SCC p. 598, para 39)
“39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be
to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication
proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is
identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the
adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on
merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act
in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person
concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court.”
15. Applying the aforesaid judgments to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.12306 of 2020
facts of this case, it is clear that in view of the detailed CVC
order dated 22-12-2011, the chances of conviction in a criminal
trial involving the same facts appear to be bleak. We,
therefore, set aside the judgment [Ashoo Surendranath
Tewari v. CBI, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 5042] of the High Court
and that of the Special Judge and discharge the appellant from
the offences under the Penal Code.
9. Considering the above ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, since the Department proceedings which same allegation
on the same materials is quashed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.16997 of
2020, the impugned First Information Report did not make out any
offence. So, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in Crime No.
813 of 2020, on the file of the 1st respondent police and accordingly,
quashed. Consequently, the proceedings pending before the Director,
Vigilance Directorate, Chennai, is also set aside.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
04.07.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/ No
trp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.12306 of 2020
K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN. J.,
trp
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Karaikudi North Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Order made in
Crl.O.P(MD)No.12306 of 2020 and
Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.7355 of 2020
and 1861 of 2021
Dated : 04.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
