2018 (3) TMI 1915

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etitions Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure namely Crl. O.P. No. 13106/2013 and 14971/2013 respectively seeking quashing of Crime No. 304 of 2012 registered pursuant to FIR 304 of 2012 dated 12.03.2012 with Adambakkam Police Station, Chennai. Said petitions were allowed by the High Court vide its common judgment and order dated 15.10.2014 which is presently under challenge at the instance of State of Tamil Nadu in these appeals by special leave. 2. The aforesaid FIR was registered pursuant to reporting by M. Nataraj, Inspector of Police, Crime, Adambakkam Police Station, Chennai. The FIR inter alia stated that the informant had received information that several crores of unaccounted money was stashed in the house of Accused-1, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... praying inter alia quashing of aforesaid Crime No. 304 of 2012. A common counter affidavit dt. 25.06.2013 refuting all material allegations was filed by Assistant Commissioner of Police on behalf of State of Tamil Nadu. It was submitted, inter alia that the unregistered agreement dated 02.03.2012 was on a stamp paper which was issued by the State Government to the stamp vendor on 09.03.2012 and the same was sold to one Vimla on 13.03.3012. It was further submitted that the lottery tickets recovered during investigation were sent to the respective State Governments to check whether they were genuine and the report was still awaited. The counter affidavit further submitted that the investigation was still incomplete. 5. The High Court by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g. We heard M. Yogesh Kanna, learned Advocate on Record for the State and Mr. Amarendra Sharan, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi and Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocates for the Respondents-Accused. 7. In our view the assessment made by the High Court at a stage when the investigation was yet to be completed, is completely incorrect and uncalled for. Presence of two crucial facts was enough to let the investigation go on, namely, recovery of huge amount of cash of Rs. 7.2 crores from the house of one of the Accused and that such recovery was accepted by the Accused. The explanation given by them about the alleged transaction of agreement of sale and receipt of cash in pursuance thereof does not prima facie appear to be correct. The agreement is s....