S. Sudalaikannu v. The Commissioner

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE : 03.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR S.Sudalaikannu : Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Vigilance Commission, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Director, Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, No.293, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai 600 016.

3.State of Tamil Nadu rep.by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, 16/53 A, Masilamani Nagar, Near Central Jail, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District - 627 005.

4.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tirunelveli Detachment, Tirunelveli.

... Respondents 1/5

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein to conduct further investigation in Crime No.7 of 2017, dated 22.05.2017 on the file of the vigilance and Anticorruption Police Station, Tirunelveli. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Bharathy Kannan, For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor.

O R D E R

The Writ Petition has been filed invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct further investigation in Crime No.7 of 2017, dated 22.05.2017 on the file of the fourth respondent.

2. It is seen from the records that the third respondent, after completing the investigation, has sent the draft final report seeking sanction as against 20 proposed accused, but sanction was granted against two accused and accordingly, charge sheet was laid before the concerned Court. The said two accused filed the quash petition before 2/5

this Court and this Court vide order, dated 09.09.2022 allowed the same and thereby quashed the charge sheet filed against them. The petitioner, who was the defacto complainant as well as the third respondent preferred the Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same came to be dismissed.

3.Now the petitioner filed the present petition for further investigation. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge the order declining sanction in respect of the other 18 accused. The learned counsel has also made an endorsement to that effect on the writ petition.

4. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order declining sanction as against 18 accused before the appropriate forum, if so advised. No costs. 03.11.2025 das 3/5

To 1.The Commissioner, Vigilance Commission, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Director, Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, No.293, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai 600 016.

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, 16/53 A, Masilamani Nagar, Near Central Jail, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District - 627 005.

4.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tirunelveli Detachment, Tirunelveli.

4/5

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J das Order made in Dated : 03.11.2025 5/5