Madras High CourtCRL MP(MD)/9278/2017disposed of

S.R.Vanaraja, v. M.Rajendran,

2017-11-23Honourable Mrs Justice J. Nisha Banu3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Third day of November Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice J.NISHA BANU CRL MP(MD) No.9278 of 2017 IN CRL OP(MD) No.3038 of 2017 S.R.VANARAJA ... PETITIONER/INTERVENER Vs 1 M.RAJENDRAN, PRINCIPAL INCHARGE, P.M.T.COLLEGE, USILAMPATTI, MADURAI DISTRICT. ...1st RESPONDENT/1st PETITIONER 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION POLICE STATION, MADURAI. ...2nd RESPONDENT/1st RESPONDENT Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to cancel the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the first respondent by order dated 06.04.2017 made in the above Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3038 of 2017.

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.C.JEGANATHAN, Advocate for VEERA ASSOCIATES, for the petitioner and of MR.C.RAMESH, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents the court made the following order:- This petition has been filed to cancel the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the 1st respondent by order dated 06.04.2017 made in CRL.OP(MD)No.3038 of 2017.

2.Though the petitioner had averred many things, nowhere in the petition, he has stated that when the 1st respondent has indulged in illegal acts and in what way, the petitioner was harassed. In paragraph 7, the petitioner had averred that the 1st respondent has

threatened him with dire consequences if he does not withdraw the complaint and such withdrawal of complaint cannot be made once the complaint is registered.

3.The allegation made by the petitioner cannot be accepted. What the Court has to see is whether the petitioner has violated any of the conditions imposed by this Court in the anticipatory bail order granted on 10.04.2017. Admittedly, there is no violation of any conditions imposed by this Court.

4.The 1st respondent at paragraph 10 of his counter affidavit, has specifically denied that he never indulged in any act as alleged by the petitioner and never threatened the petitioner and he has also stated he has nothing to do with the FIR in Crime No.535 of 2017 against the petitioner. The 1st respondent undertakes that he is always ready and willing to participate in the interrogation and as and when the Police calls him, he will co-operate for the investigation at any time and therefore, there is no reason for cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the 1st respondent on 06.04.2017. The present petition is only an abuse of process of law.

5.Though there is an order by this Court to complete the investigation, still, the Police has not yet completed the investigation. In the circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be met if a direction is given to the 2nd respondent/Police to complete the investigation within a time frame. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent/Police is directed to complete the investigation in this case and file charge sheet within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

sd/- 23/11/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE SPECIAL JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF THE CASES UNDER PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, MADURAI, MADURAI DISTRICT.

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION POLICE STATION, MADURAI.

3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. C.C. to M/S.VEERA ASSOCIATES Advocate SR.No.35031 +1. C.C. to M/S.E.V.N.SIVA, Advocate SR.No.35188

ORDER

IN CRL MP(MD) No.9278 of 2017 IN CRL OP(MD) No.3038 of 2017 Date :23/11/2017 PK/PM-PN/SAR-2/05.12.2017 : 3P/6C