← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/10922/2018dismissed with direction

R. Ramachandran v. The Additional Superintendent

2018-07-18Honourable Mrs Justice R. Tharani4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 03.07.2018 Pronounced on : 18.07.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R. THARANI Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10922 of 2018 and Crl. M.P.(MD)No.4938 of 2018 R.Ramachandran ... Petitioner Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its, Additional Superintendent of Police, Special Investigation Cell, Vigilance Anti Corruption, Madurai.

(In Crime No.6 of 2012) ... Respondent PRAYER : The petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to Crime No.6 of 2012 registered on the file of the respondent Police and quash the same in respect of the petitioners.

For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan.S.Kumar For Respondent : Mr.B.Puhazenthi, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.M.Chandrasekaran, Additional Public Prosecutor.

ORDER

Heard Mr.Niranjan.S.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.B.Puhazenthi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assisted by Mr.M.Chandrasekaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

2.This Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.6 of 2012 on the file of the respondent Police.

3.The case of prosecution is that the petitioner joined as the Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department. Some complaints against some Private Quarry Operators were forwarded to the Commissioner Geology and Mines on 14.06.2010. The then Commissioner forwarded the complaint to the District Collector, Madurai on 08.07.2010 requesting him to submit a report. As per the direction of the District Collector, a report was submitted to the District Collector by the Executive Engineer. The District Collector forwarded the same to the Secretary. The case of the petitioner is that being a public servant, the accused have facilitated the

private quarry owners by filing a false report by concealing the facts to the Government regarding the encroachments made in many Kummais and Tanks in Madurai District. A case was registered in Crime No.6/2012/AC/ AC/MDU for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 119 and 120(b) of IPC.

4.On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that some complaints were received by the Secretary Industries Department and based on the same, the reports were called for from the District Collector, Madurai who in turn got the reports from the Executive Engineer and directed a joint inspection by the Tahsildar, Melur along with the officials of the Public Works Department and the Department of Mines and also instructed the District Revenue Officer to submit a report after the inspection of Kanmais(lakes). It is stated that as per the direction, every Department submitted their own reports to the District Collector. The District Collector directed to inspect and report whether any encroachment are there in such Kanmais and that whether there is dumping of materials in such Kanmais. It is stated that the petitioner has not suppressed any facts or favoured any person or has shown any undue influence as stated in the FIR.

5.On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the person incharge of the Kanmais and Tanks is the Assistant Engineer. When the District Collector directed to submit the report, the Assistant Engineer has prepared a report and the petitioner has signed the report and sent the same to the Executive Engineer. The Executive Engineer has drafted a fresh report on the basis of the report submitted by the petitioner and has forwarded the same to the District Collector. There is no allegation of receiving pecuniary benefit or receiving any valuable illegal gratification. The petitioner was not found in possession of any property disproportionate to his income. The maximum possible action against the petitioner only is disciplinary proceedings. There is a delay in filing the FIR. The occurrence took place on 14.06.2010 and the FIR was lodged on 14.09.2012.

6.On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the disputed lands are leased out to the private quarry operators for non agricultural purposes on temporary basis. Some water bodies are leased out for dumping waste materials. Even in the FIR, no charge is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner did not give sanction and he never received any illegal gratification. It is not stated that he received any material for illegal gratification. He has not passed any orders. He has mentioned that there are encroachments to be removed. No offence is made out. The charge sheet was not taken on file. It is only in FIR stage and the same has to be quashed.

7.On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the offence is serious in nature. 13 water bodies in Melur Taluk in Madurai District and the connecting water channels are also destroyed and these water bodies are linked with each other with channels. The petitioner did not denied that he has inspected the

place. The water bodies are scheme lakes interlinked with one another and that water bodies cannot be leased out to any private persons. Several petitions are received by the Government and some of the petitions are published in the newspaper and as per the direction of the Collector, the petitioner and the other officials are supposed to inspect the area. The Tahsildar and the petitioner suppressed the material facts. These tanks are the scheme tanks. The water passes through one channel after filling one tank, the water will flow into other tank and so on. In the report of the petitioner, there is no whisper about the dumping of waste in the water bodies. The Assistant Engineer was forced to sign the report and the Executive Engineer has forwarded the report.

In the report, the Assistant Engineer has examined 49 witnesses and collected 97 documents. Even then the Deputy Director suppressed the encroachments in all these reports. All of them combined together and prepared the reports which are on the computer of the Deputy Director office. 85 criminal cases were filed and 181 accused are involved in the case. 25 cases under 7 TNPPDL Act are also filed. The water is used for agricultural purpose but these water bodies are denied to the agriculturists for the past 10 years. Though the District Revenue Officer filed a report, the Collector suppressed the same as if there is nothing. The then District Collector is A1, A2 is the Assistant Director (Mines), A3 is the Tahsildar, A4 is the petitioner and private quarry operators are A5 to A18. As A1 is the Collector is the I.A.S.

Officer, the Chief Secretary has to give sanction and pages to be perused are voluminous, it requires time for the Chief Secretary to sanction the sanction order. The final report was preferred after the concurrence of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing was obtained.

8.On the side of the petitioner, it is further stated that all the ponds are surrounded by bunds and dumping in the bunds makes it strong. On 28.02.2018, on the date of retirement, the petitioner was suspended. The Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer are termed as witnesses of the case.

9.Records perused. This matter is related to private quarry business. Many cases were filed against the private quarry owners who are carrying on the business in and around the quarries in Melur Taluk. It is further stated that some water bodies which are linked wherein the water from one tank will flow into other tank was damaged by dumping of quarry waste in the water bodies as well as in the water channels. It is stated that approximately 85 cases are filed against the private quarry owners. It is also stated that so many complaints are received by the Government. Some of them are published in the newspaper. When the Secretary to the Government called for a report, the then Collector, Assistant Director (Department of Mines), Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer, Public Works Department and Tahsildar colluded together suppressed material facts and filed a report to the Government. 10.On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the report was prepared by the Assistant Engineer and the same was forwarded to the Executive Engineer who in turn forwarded the same

to the District Collector. It is further stated that the Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer were not added as an accused in this case.

11.Records perused. Whether this petitioner is having any involvement in the case can be decided only after completion of the trial and the case is now in the initial stage. According to the respondent, the charge sheet is ready and sanction is awaited for taking action against A1 who was the then District Collector. The Secretary to the Government has to sign the sanction order and he has to peruse voluminous documents which requires time. 12.In this circumstances, this Court finds it not necessary to quash the FIR and directed the respondent to file the final report within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I) To 1.The Additional Superintendent of Police, Special Investigation Cell, Vigilance Anti Corruption, Madurai.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1cc to M/S.Niranjan.S.Kumar, Advocate SR.No. 73809 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10922 of 2018 18.07.2018 mrn JM/SV/SAR 1/30.07.2018/4P/4C