Madras High CourtCRL OP/34017/2019disposed of

S.Amudha v. The State Rep By Its

2020-01-02Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02.01.2020

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.O.P.No.34017 of 2019 S. Amudha .. Petitioner Vs.

State of rep by its Inspector of Police Vigilance & Anti Corruption wing Thiruvannamalai.

(Crime No.14 of 2019) .. Respondent PRAYER:Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to direct the respondent police to file a final Report in Crime No.14 of 2019 pending on the file of Inspector of police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Thiruvannamalai and pass orders.

For Petitioner : Mr.R. Neelakandan For Respondent : Mr.C. Iyyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, directing the respondent police to file a final Report in Crime No.14 of 2019 pending on the file of Inspector of police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Thiruvannamalai. 2.The case of the petitioner is that he is working as a Panchayat Clerk ( PTC) at Kanapuram. The defacto complainant has filed a false complaint as against the petitioner for the alleged occurrence took place on 02.08.2019, before the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent police has registered a case on 07.08.2019 for the alleged offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Crime No.14 of 2019. 3.In the complaint, the defacto complainant has alleged that he was working as a tank operator in Kanapuram Panchyat and he has not paid 3 months salary to the tune of Rs.7,000/-. Hence, he approached the petitioner, who is working as panchayat clerk, for which she demanded a sum of Rs.7,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

as bribe from the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant did not want to pay any amount as illegal gratification, hence he lodged a complaint before the respondent police. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that a false complaint has been made against the petitioner and she has been facing Departmental enquiry against the alleged charges found in the FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if the petitioner is not being relieved from the criminal charges, she could not be relieved from the charges levelled against her at the administrative side and the statutory period for filing a final report is also expired. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court for appropriate orders.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the investigation has been completed and the law enforcing agency is awaiting for the sanction from the prosecution to file a final report. However, submitted that the charge sheet will be filed within a period of four months. 6.In view of the above undertaking given by the learned government Advocate, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar smn To.

1.The Inspector of Police Vigilance & Anti Corruption wing Thiruvannamalai.

(Crime No.11 of 2019) 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras 104.

+1 CC to Mr.M. Madhan Kumar, Advocate sr 681 Crl.O.P.No.34017 of 2019 SV(CO) SP(30/01/2020) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/