Crl.O.P.No.8844 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 07.04.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.O.P.No.8844 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.Nos.5852 & 5857 of 2025 T.Poosathurai ... Petitioner/1st Accused Vs. 1.The State Represented By The Inspector Of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Cuddalore. 2.A. Gnanasekar ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S, 2023, prays to call for the records and quash the proceedings as against the petitioner in SPL.C.C.No. 3 of 2021, pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore for as offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. For Petitioner : M/s.K.Balu For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER The petitioner/1st accused, facing trial in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2021, for an offence under Section 12 read with 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has filed a quash petition. Page No.1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8844 of 2025 2. The petitioner's contention is that the defacto complainant lodged a false complaint against him. The respondent police, without verifying the antecedents, mechanically registered the FIR. Further, one Ramanathan, a witness and friend of the defacto complainant admitted that he had gone to the Sub Registrar Office for the registration of a sale agreement. The petitioner had refused to register the same due to discrepancies in the name and place in the document. These discrepancies could have affected the valuation and collection of stamp duty and registration charges. Since the petitioner refused to proceed with the registration, Ramanathan, through second respondent allegedly initiated a false complaint. This aspect was not considered by the trial Court, which instead projected the petitioner as having collected money as bribe amount through A2. It is further submitted that no bribe amount was recovered from the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent, opposed the petition and filed a counter, stating that the petitioner, being a public servant had accepted a bribe amount of Rs.5,000/-. He further submitted that the defacto complainant, in his document as well as statement, clearly stated that these property in question is situated in melaveedhi He had Page No.2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8844 of 2025 requested to amend it as west street instead of Melveedi as found in the parent document. When the defacto complainant was ready to correct the discrepancy, the document was still not registered. Further, the accompanying official witness, Rajendran, clearly confirmed the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the petitioner through A2. The point raised by the petitioner are matters of factual defence, which can be decided only during trial. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is confident of proving that a malafide complaint has been lodged and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. There are only 12 witnesses and the petitioner is ready to cross examine them as and when they are produced, without causing any delay. The case was registered as early as 2020 and the charge sheet was filed in the year 2021. The petitioner's future prospects have been adversely affected. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submits that all the witnesses are local witnesses and can be produced without delay. There are nearly 116 cases currently pending at the Page No.3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8844 of 2025 trial stage before the trial Court and the priority is being given to older cases. However, the trial is progressing without unnecessary delay. As far as this case is concerned, the trial can be completed within a period of six months, provided the petitioner and other accused cooperate by cross examining the witnesses as and when they are produced, without seeking adjournments or causing delay. 6. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner, this Court directs the trial Court to complete the trial, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The above petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the case. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 07.04.2025 Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No rpl To 1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore. 2. The Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Page No.4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8844 of 2025 Cuddalore. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Page No.5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.8844 of 2025 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. rpl Crl.O.P.No.8844 of 2025 07.04.2025 Page No.6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis