2022 (10) TMI 1178 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses discharge and quashing petitions, emphasizes fair trial. De-novo investigation ordered. Impleading petitions rejected.

V. Senthil Balaji, R. Sahayarajan Versus, Devasagayam Versus State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Chennai; V. Ganesh Kumar

V. Senthil Balaji, R. Sahayarajan Versus, Devasagayam Versus State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Chennai; V. Ganesh Kumar - TMI Issues Involved:1. Discharge petition in C.C.No.19 of 2020.2. Quashing of criminal proceedings in C.C.No.19 of 2020.3. Quashing of criminal proceedings in C.C.No.24 of 2021.4. De-novo investigation in C.C.No.24 of 2021.5. Impleading petitions by various parties.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Discharge Petition in C.C.No.19 of 2020:The petitioner, Mr. V.Senthil Balaji, sought to set aside the order dismissing his discharge petition, arguing that the complaint against him was politically motivated and lacked material evidence. The court, however, found that there were prima facie sufficient grounds for proceeding against him. The court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the evidence is not to be meticulously examined but rather to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition No.224 of 2021 was dismissed.2. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings in C.C.No.19 of 2020:Mr. Sahayarajan (A3) sought to quash the proceedings on the ground of a settlement with the complainants. The court referred to the Supreme Court's guidelines in Gian Singh's case, which allows quashing of proceedings in cases of private nature where the parties have settled. However, since the nature of the offense'cash-for-job scam'had serious societal implications, the court found it inappropriate to quash the proceedings despite the settlement. Therefore, Crl. O.P. No.13914 of 2021 was dismissed.3. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings in C.C.No.24 of 2021:Mr. Vetrichelvan (A10) sought to quash the proceedings against him, arguing that he was not involved in the recruitment process and that the sanction for prosecution was invalid. The court found that there were allegations and material in the final report suggesting his involvement. The court also noted that issues of sanction for prosecution should be tested during the trial. Thus, Crl. O.P. No.6621 of 2021 was dismissed.4. De-novo Investigation in C.C.No.24 of 2021:Mr. Devasagayam, the complainant, sought a de-novo investigation, arguing that the initial investigation was incomplete and biased. The court noted that the investigation had significant lapses, including not obtaining a forensic analysis of manipulated interview marks. The Supreme Court's direction for further investigation in a related case (C.C.No.25 of 2021) was also considered. The court found that a comprehensive re-investigation was necessary to ensure a fair and unbiased investigation. Therefore, Crl. O.P. No.15122 of 2021 was allowed, directing a de-novo investigation in C.C.No.19 of 2020 and C.C.No.24 of 2021.5. Impleading Petitions by Various Parties:Several parties, including the Directorate of Enforcement and Anti-Corruption Movement, sought to be impleaded in the proceedings. The court recognized the participatory rights of victims in criminal justice proceedings but found that the petitioners were not direct victims. The Directorate of Enforcement has independent jurisdiction under the PML Act. Therefore, all impleading petitions were dismissed.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petitions seeking discharge and quashing of proceedings, emphasizing the need for a fair trial. It allowed a de-novo investigation in C.C.No.19 of 2020 and C.C.No.24 of 2021 to ensure a comprehensive and unbiased investigation. All impleading petitions were dismissed, maintaining the focus on the main issues.