M.Shankar, Aged 56 Years, v. State By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.06.2017

CORAM

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Crl.O.P.No.8856 of 2017 & Crl.M.P.No.6371 of 2017 M.Shankar ... Petitioner Vs 1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, Mandaveli, Chennai - 600 028 (Crime No.03/2016/AC/CC.1)

2. R.Gunasekaran ... Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to call for record in connection with Crime No.3/2016/AC/CC on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, Chennai - 600 028 and quash the FIR as against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Shaji Paul For Respondents : Mr.E.Raja Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records in Cr.No.3/2016/AC/CC and to quash the same against the petitioner herein.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no demand for illegal gratification and the petitioner collected correct water charges which resulted in filing the false case against the petitioner. There is no evidence for the alleged demand and there was a delay in filing the F.I.R. also and hence the learned counsel prayed for quashing the F.I.R.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner being a public servant asked the defacto complainant to come to his office with regard to water consumption charges and when the defacto complainant met the petitioner in his office, he informed that the Metro Water Meter fixed in the defacto complainant's premises was not

functioning properly and he demanded Rs.6000/- as illegal gratification for forbearing from fixing higher rate of tariff and collecting arrears. As a result, a trap was organised and the petitioner was caught red handed. Hence, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 and the respondent police conducted the enquiry and completed the investigation.

4. It is further contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that earlier, the petitioner had taken out a petition on the same ground to quash the FIR and the same was dismissed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.24155 of 2016 on 2.11.2016, against which a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Honourable Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed. Now, again on the same ground, the petitioner has filed this petition which is nothing but to waste the precious time of this Court.

5. Heard both sides. The case of the petitioner is that he demanded Rs.6000/- from the defacto complainant as illegal gratification and he was caught red handed with the tainted money. At this stage this Court cannot hold any trial as to the facts of the case, to find out whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated or not. It is seen from the records that the respondent police registered a case, organized trap, petitioner was caught red handed and tainted money has been seized. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has already filed a similar quash petition before this Court, the same was dismissed, he approached the Honourable Supreme Court, and the Honourable Supreme Court has also upheld the order of this Court. At this stage, this court is of the view that the petition is nothing but only to abuse the process of law.

6. In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed.

-s/d- Assistant Registrar(CO) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar ggs To 1.

The Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, Mandaveli, Chennai - 600 028.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1 CC to Mr.S. Shaji Paul, Advocate sr 41923. Crl.O.P.No.8856 of 2017 & Crl.M.P.No.6371 of 2017 KS(CO) sp(10/08/2017)