S.Padmanabhan, Aged 60 Years, v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.06.2018

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH Crl.O.P. No.2706 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.1108 of 2018 S.Padmanabhan ..

Petitioner vs.

State represented by Inspector of Police Commercial Crime Investigation Wing Chennai 600 052.

..

Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to call for the records and quash the FIR registered in Cr.No.674 of 2011 by the respondent police.

For petitioner Mr.J.Muthukumaran For Respondent Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate [Crl.Side]

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the FIR registered in Cr.No.674 of 2011 by the respondent police.

2. On the complaint lodged by Banumathi, Deputy Registrar, Co-operative, the respondent police have registered a case in Cr.No.64 of 2011 on 25.01.2011 under Section 6(2)(3) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution of Card System) Order, 1982 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for quashing which, this petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in respect of the allegations that are said to have taken place in the year 2010, an FIR was registered in the year 2011 and till 2018, there has not been any progress in the investigation.

4. Today, Mr.V.Padmakumar, HC 35163, CSCID, Chennai is present before this Court.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the police have written letters to the authorities for submitting certain documents and those documents have not been received.

6. However, on a reading of the FIR, it is seen that, the petitioner was working as a Salesman in the fair price shop and that during inspection, shortages were found to a tune of Rs.8,106/-. Admittedly, when departmental proceedings were taken up, the petitioner paid the said sum. Of course, payment of the amount will not be a reason to quash the FIR. However, from 2010-2018, there is absolutely no progress in the investigation and the petitioner was not allowed to retire even though he attained the age of superannuation in the year 2016 and his terminal benefits have been withheld on the ground that a criminal case is pending.

7. Since there has not been any progress in the investigation so far and bearing in mind the fact that the alleged shortfall of Rs.8,106/- has also been repaid by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that interests of justice would be subserved if the petition is allowed and the FIR is quashed and accordingly, this petition is allowed and the prosecution in Cr.No.64 of 2011 is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gms To 1.The Inspector of Police Commercial Crime Investigation Wing Chennai 600 052.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Chennai.

+ 1 cc to MR. J. Muthukumaran, Advocate Sr.39842 Crl.O.P. No.2706 of 2018 SSI(CO) EU(10/07/2018) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/