Madras High CourtCRL OP/25900/2018disposed of

T.Al.Tenappan, v. State By,

2018-11-12Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.11.2018

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.O.P.No.25900 of 2018 T.AL.Tenappan .. Petitioner Vs.

State of Inspector of Police Vigilance & Anti Corruption, C.S.U.I.

Chennai 600 016 (Crime No.7/AC/2017) .. Respondents PRAYER:Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to direct the respondent herein viz. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, C.S.U.I., Chennai 600 016 to complete the investigation in the above case in Crime No.7/AC/2017 and file a final report before the concerned court within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Vinodh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.R.Ravichandran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, directing the respondent herein viz. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, C.S.U.I., Chennai 600 016 to complete the investigation in the above case in Crime No.7/AC/2017 and file a final report before the concerned court within the time stipulated by this Court.

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the resident of Chennai. The defacto complainant has filed a false complaint as against the petitioner for the alleged occurrence took place on 04.10.2018 before the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent police has registered a case on 09.10.2018 for the alleged offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Crime No.7/AC/2017. 3.In the complaint, the defacto complainant has alleged that he has obtained H.T. Service for the commercial complex in the year 2015. Thereafter, on 03.10.2017, he has submitted a letter for renewal to the Assistant of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Electrical Engineer, for that purpose, the petitioner had allegedly demanded illegal gratification of Rs.25,000/- for renewal of licence for the lift, when the defacto complainant pleaded his inability to pay the said amount, the amount was reduced to Rs.10,000/-. When the defacto complainant did not want to pay any amount as illegal gratification, he had lodged a complaint before the respondent as if the petitioner had demanded illegal gratification. Hence, the law enforcing agency has registered a case as against the petitioner. The learned counsel would further submit that the investigation is not yet completed. Based on the alleged false complaint, the petitioner was suspended from the services. Since the charge sheet has not been filed, the petitioner is not able to pursue further remedy with the department. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court for appropriate orders.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the investigation is completed and the law enforcing agency is awaiting for the sanction of prosecution against the petitioner. However, charge sheet will be filed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5.In view of the above undertaking, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar kas To.

1.The Inspector of Police Vigilance & Anti Corruption, C.S.U.I.

Chennai 600 016 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104.

+1 CC to Mr.G. Vinodh Kumar, Advocate sr 77074. Crl.O.P.No.25900 of 2018 SP(22/11/2018) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/