CRL OP No. 22545 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN CRL OP No. 22545 of 2026 and CRL MP No.14960 of 2026 Ramesh Kumar S/o.Late.K.Periasamy, Tahsildar, No.2, Aishwarya Nagar, 2nd Cross, P.N.Pudur, Coimbatore. ..Petitioner(s)/Accused Vs 1. The State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Coimbatore. 2. R.Ranjith Kumar S/o. Ramasamy, No.1/146A, Perumal Koil Street, Aripatty Post, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS., to call for records of the proceedings in Cr.No.15/2025/AC/CB, pending on the file of Respondent Police and quash the same as an abuse of process of law. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Velmurugan For Respondent(s): Mr.Arun Anbumani Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 22545 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 5 ORDER The prayer in this Criminal Original Petition is to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.15/2025/AC/CB on the file of the respondent police. 2. It is the case of Mr.M.Velmurugan that the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed on the following grounds: i). Approval for Solvency Certificate, sought for by the defacto complainant, was granted on 30.06.2025, whereas the alleged demand said to have been made by the petitioner on the defacto complainant was made on 24.07.2025. ii). The defacto complainant has reported there is no adverse relationship between himself and the petitioner. However, he has suppressed the fact that his wife and the petitioner's wife are sisters and the relationship between them is not healthy. iii). He urges that the DVD that is said to be containing the conversation between the petitioner and the defacto complainant is a manipulated one. iv).Finally, Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act had not been complied with. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 22545 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 5 3. It is too well settled, but I reiterate for the purpose of this case, that an FIR is not a Bible. This Court, while dealing with quashing of an FIR, has to be circumspect that the matter is under investigation, and only if it is an absolutely frivolous or baseless complaint, should it interfere in exercise of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. The factum that the relationship between the parties have hit rock bottom does not matter in a complaint which relates to alleged demand and receipt of bribe. Whether the petitioner had in fact demanded and received bribe is a matter which should have to be gone into at the time of investigation. 5. Prima facie, the FIR discloses a conversation that has taken place between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, whereunder the petitioner had demanded bribe for issuance of a certificate. Whether the allegation is true or not would come out only after the investigation. At the threshold, I am not inclined to stifle the investigation. 6. With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 13-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No smv https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 22545 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 5 To, 1.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Coimbatore. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 22545 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 5 V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. smv CRL OP No. 22545 of 2026 13-08-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis