P.N. Bala Manikandan, v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 28.04.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5405 of 2025 P.N.Bala Manikandan ... Petitioner versus

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madurai District.

2. D.Senthil Kumar ... Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, seeking to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in Crime No.3 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and AntiCorruption, Madurai District and quash the same as against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For R1 : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor 1/7

ORDER

The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.3 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madurai. On the complaint of the second respondent, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department has registered a case against the petitioner and one Pandiyarajan, Sub Registrar, Thirumangalam, for the offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018. Seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.3 of 2025, the petitioner has moved this petition that he is only a Document Writer and he has not made any demand. In fact, when the 2nd respondent attempted to hand over the tainted money, he refused to receive it. Therefore, the 2nd respondent deposited the amount in the bank account of the petitioner/2nd accused and lodged the complaint that a demand was made by the 1st accused/the Sub Registrar and the 2nd accused/the petitioner herein on 24.01.2025.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, in his office, has set up a CCTV camera. The CCTV footage 2/7

would reveal that when the 2nd respondent attempted to hand over the tainted money, the petitioner has refused to receive it. Admittedly, in this case, the tainted money was deposited in the petitioner's Bank account, based on which, a criminal case has been registered.

3. Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who takes notice for the first respondent, submits that a demand was made by the first accused/the Sub Registrar on 24.01.2025 in the presence of the petitioner/2nd accused in the office of the Sub Registrar, Thirumangalam, Madurai. For this incident, they have already collected CCTV footage from the Sub Registrar's office. Apart from that, there was a second demand on 21.02.2025 by the first accused in the presence of the second accused at the office of the Sub Registrar, Thirumangalam, Madurai. The CCTV footage has also been collected by the Investigating Agency from the office of the Sub Registrar, Thirumangalam. Even on the date of trap, the 1st accused demanded and asked the complainant to wait till the arrival of the petitioner/2nd accused and both of them instructed the complainant to deposit the demanded money in the account of the 2nd 3/7

accused. Accordingly, the complainant/2nd respondent has deposited the amount in the bank account of the 2nd accused.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that for the third incident on the occurrence day also, there is a CCTV footage and they also recovered the CCTV footage. Apart from that, the defacto complainant has approached the Sub Registrar Office on 24.01.2025 for registration of documents through the petitioner/2nd accused. The registration fee and stamp fee were paid to the Government by the 2nd accused in the name of the complainant through his bank account and they have also collected receipt No.698/2025 in document No.P/Thirumangalam/13/2025, dated 24.01.2025. The demanded amount of Rs.70,000/- was also deposited in the bank account of the 2nd accused as per the instruction of accused Nos.1 and 2 and the Bank Statement of the 2nd accused was also recovered in this regard. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the application which was submitted on 24.01.2025, the accused 1 and 2 have kept the papers without processing, even after the payment of the 4/7

required stamp fee on 24.01.2025. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, they have collected sufficient materials as against the petitioner/2nd accused and the investigation is in crucial stage.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is also having a CCTV footage, which would disprove the entire prosecution. Therefore, he requests that the CCTV footage in the custody of the accused has also to be considered during the course of investigation.

6. Investigation is a process of finding the truth. The case in Crime No.3 of 2025 is under investigation. The respondent Police submits that they have collected prima facie materials as against the 2nd accused. The petitioner claims that he is also having some CCTV footage, which disproves the case of the prosecution.

7. It is open to the petitioner to furnish the CCTV footage, if any in 5/7

his custody, to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer shall consider the same after ascertaining its genuineness and take a decision in accordance with law.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 28.04.2025 ogy NCC : Yes / No.

Index : Yes / No.

Internet:Yes / No.

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madurai District.

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

6/7

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

ogy 28.04.2025 7/7