High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.26775 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 18 .11.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMARCrl.O.P.No.26775 of 2025and Crl.M.P.Nos.18183 & 18184 of 2025R.Rajeswari... PetitionerVs.State of Tamil Nadu rep. byThe Inspector of Police,Vigilance and Anti Corruption,Salem.... RespondentPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for entire records and quash Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2024 on the file of the Special Court for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Salem against the petitioner.For Petitioner: Mr.J.Hariharanfor M/s.KV Law FirmFor Respondent:Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph SelvamAdditional Public ProsecutorORDERThe petitioner/A4 in Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2024 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Salem filed this quash petition. Page No.1 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26775 of 20252.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is arrayed as A4 along with five other individuals for the offence under Sections 120B, 406, 409, 420 IPC and Sections 12, 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. The petitioner is the proprietor of Sri R.R.Traders, in accordance with statutory provisions participated in the tender process for supply of vehicle-mounted fogging machines for Edanganasalai Town Panchayat, Paranmarathupatti Town Panchayat and Keeripatti Town Panchayat of Salem District. The Executive Officers of the concerned Town Panchayats called for the tender on 09.10.2019 for purchase of fogging machines. The said tenders were duly approved by the Assistant Director of Town Panchayat. On 16.10.2019, the petitioner participated in the tender process by submitting a tender quote for Rs.5,72,000/- to each of the Town Panchayats. The petitioner complied with the tender conditions and paid the deposit amounts in adherence to the financial conditions as per the tender notice. 3.The Government of Tamil Nadu issued a circular to purchase fogging machines by the respective Town Panchayats from and out of their Page No.2 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26775 of 2025Town Panchayat General Fund. The petitioner supplied vehicle-mounted fogging machines at the rate of Rs.5,75,604/- which is now projected that the tender was awarded to the petitioner at a higher rate than the market price causing wrongful loss to the Town Panchayat. The loss caused is to the tune of Rs.2,24,300/- to Edanganasalai Town Panchayat, Rs.2,24,300/- to Paranmarathupatti First Grade Town Panchayat and Rs.2,24,300/- to Keeripatty First Grade Town Panchayat. This is primarily on the assumption and not based on any factual finding. It is an open tender, all the tenderers participated and after considering the tender condition and quote price, finally the petitioner was allotted with the tender for supply of vehicle-mounted fogging machines. The tender process was held in public, it was considered by the concerned Officers and after getting permission from the Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, the concerned Panchayats placed the order. The machines were supplied and only thereafter, payments made. Now it is alleged that the petitioner is not an authorized agent for the fogging machines and the rates are inflated. The tender forms published in the dailies and uploaded in the official website and several tenderers participated and in the tender conditions, there is no specific clause prohibiting that specific persons alone to participate in the tender. When Page No.3 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26775 of 2025there is no violation of tender conditions, attributing motive without materials and prosecuting the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 4.Further during the relevant period mosquito menace was there and wide spread of malaria, dengue and flu, for that reason, all the Town Panchayats throughout the State of Tamil Nadu was directed to purchase fogging machines to control and curtail the spread of epidemic. The rates of the fogging machines are almost same throughout the State and no action taken in other Districts except in the District of Salem. Further the Panchayats were audited by the official of Local Fund and Statutory Auditors and no objections raised. In such circumstances, targeting the petitioner and tenderers for supply of fogging machines is a motivated one, to spike vengeance since the machines were supplied during the previous Government regime.5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed his counter and submitted that based on the vigilance report sent by an officer of DVAC, as ordered by the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai in Page No.4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26775 of 2025V.R.No.20894/2020/TP/SL, a case in Salem V&AC Crime No.3/AC/2021 for the offence under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018 and 120B, 167, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 474 IPC was registered on 28.01.2021 against the accused A1/N.M.Murugan, Formerly Assistant Director of Town Panchayats, Salem Zone, Salem (Now retired), A2/S.Balasubramani, Executive Officer, formerly Sankagiri Special Grade Town Panchayat, Salem District. A3/D.Srinivasan, formerly Executive Officer, Sentharapatti Town Panchayat, Salem, A4/Tr.K.Sundaramurthi, formerly Executive Officer, Thammampatty Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Salem District. A5/V.Ganesh, Formerly Executive officer, Valapady Town Panchayat, i/c Pethanaichanpalayam, Salem District, A6/S.Arumuganainar, Executive Officer, formerly Kannankuruchi Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Salem, A7/R.Ashokkumar, Formerly Executive Officer, Omalur Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Salem District, A8/M.Meganathan, Executive Officer, formerly Edanganasalai, Town Panchayat, Salem, A9/K.Ganesan, formerly Panamarathupatty First Grade Town Panchayat, Salem District and A10/M.KadarBatcha, Executive Officer, Formerly Keeripatty First Grade Town Panchayat, Salem District with the concurrence of the Vigilance Page No.5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26775 of 2025Commissioner as conveyed in U.O. Note No.2951/VC-II/2020-1, dated 31.10.2020 into the allegation that the A1 to A10 in connivance with firms, purchased vehicle mounted outdoor fogging machines to Town Panchayats at exorbitant rate and caused huge loss to the Town Panchayat funds to the tune of Rs 28,05,414/- during the year between 2018 and 2019.6.He would submit that during the course of investigation, it was disclosed that the Executive Officers of various Town Panchayats (A2 to A10 as mentioned in the FIR) hatched a criminal conspiracy with certain traders. Consequently, three separate charge sheets filed, categorized based on the involvement of the accused and period of the offences. As such, in Charge Sheet No.2, the following persons are arrayed as accused: A1/M.Meganathan employed as Executive officer of Edanganasalai Town Panchayat, Salem District, A2/K.Ganesan, employed as Executive officer of Panamarathupatty First Grade Town Panchayat, Salem District, A3/S.K.M.Kather, working as Executive officer of Keeripatti Town Panchayats, Salem A4/R.Rajeswari (petitioner herein), Sri RR Traders, Thiruvallur, A5/D.Ravintharan, Deva Traders, Coimbatore, and A6/T.Neduncheliyan, Nedunchelian Enterprises, Coimbatore and the same Page No.6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26775 of 2025was taken on file by the Special Court in C.C.No.2/2024, two other separate charge sheets filed against the remaining accused persons mentioned in the FIR, along with the traders who were involved in the purchase of vehicle-mounted fogging machines in collusion with the accused/Executive Officers of the respective Town Panchayats. The said charge sheets filed before the Special Court for Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Cases, Salem and taken on file as Special C.C.Nos.1 and 3 of 2024. Further, during the course of investigation there is no evidence to charge sheet the accused A1/M.N.Murugan, Assistant Director of Town Panchayats, Salem that he participated in the conspiracy and gained unlawfully. Hence he was deleted from the charge of this case. He would further submit that the petitioner's plea to quash Spl.C.C.No.2/2024 is unsustainable in law and facts. After due enquiry and investigation, final report filed with prima facie, cogent materials supported by documents and witness statements, clearly establishing the petitioner's involvement as A4 in offences under Sections 120B, 406, 409, 420 IPC and 12, 13(2) r/w, 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. He further submitted that the co-accused in this case, namely, A1 to A3 filed quash petitions before this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.2854, 2989, 7340, 7342 and 7352 of 2025 on similar Page No.7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26775 of 2025grounds and this Court by order dated 16.09.2025 dismissed the same.7.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that in this case the primary contention is that there was no price uploaded in the Government e-Market Portal (GeM), hence called for limited tenders following the Tamilnadu Financial Code. This limited tender process was not given wide publicity to all traders, all were not informed about the purchase of fogging machines. The Maximum Retail Price (MRP) is a constant factor to all dealers, suppliers and traders and the tender rates might include other features and may vary. In this case, MRP rate with dealers should be static. It is seen that whether at all the tenderers were approved dealers or not, to be decided and whether the manufacturer had allowed the traders to fix MRP rates of their own, it is a matter of fact. The petitioner now quoting the GeM rate of the year 2020 and comparing the same is not proper. Whether all traders were made known about the purchase of fogging machines, is also a fact in issue.8.Further the primary ground raised by the petitioner is that 180 Town Panchayats purchased fogging machines for higher rates but no action has Page No.8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26775 of 2025been taken, hence, malice and motivated case projected against the petitioner. Motive and malice is a matter of fact, which are to be decided during trial. The points raised by the petitioner are factual and disputed by the prosecution and no impeccable material produced by the petitioners to overlook the charge sheet. In view of the same, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.9.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being a lady having her residence and business at Thiruvallur District would be put to untold sufferings and misery if she was compelled to appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates. The petitioner undertakes to file a petition seeking dispensation for her appearance and an undertaking affidavit that she will not dispute her identity, raise any objection for recording evidence in her absence and her counsel shall cross examine the witnesses without delay and she will not be a reason for delay of the trial. Further she shall appear before the Court as and when directed. The Trial Court to consider if any such application is filed by the petitioner under Section 205 Cr.P.C. or Section 228 of BNSS sympathetically.Page No.9 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26775 of 202510.It is made clear that the observations made herein is only for the purpose of disposing of the above petition. The trial Court uninfluenced with the above observations shall decide the case on its own merits and in accordance with law. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.18.11.2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking Order/Non-Speaking Order,Neutral Citation: Yes/No csePage No.10 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26775 of 2025To1.The Special Judge, Special Court for trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Salem.2.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Salem.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page No.11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26775 of 2025M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.cseCrl.O.P.No.26775 of 202518.11.2025 Page No.12 of 12