SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIASPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. ____OF 2023M. Parvin … PetitionerversusDirectorate of Vigilenceand Anti Corruption … RespondentsWritten Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner DR Ramsanker counsel for petnet

by ·

[23/04, 07:11] sekarreporter1: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. ____OF 2023
M. Parvin … Petitioner
versus
Directorate of Vigilence
and Anti Corruption … Respondents
Written Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner

  1. The present SLP arises out of common impugned judgement dated
    11.11.2022 passed by the High Court of Madras in Crl. OP No. 30357/2019 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.14/2019 pending before the Additional Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases Related to Elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.
  2. The Petitioner herein is the wife of former DGP Mr. M.S. Jaffar Sait, IPS an officer of the 1986 batch who has served in various positions in the Tamil Nadu Police Department, between 1988 and 2020 till his retirement from service in December, 2020.
  3. The allegation against the Petitioner is that during 2008 and 2010 at Chennai and other places, seven accused persons (including the Petitioner) were parties to the a criminal conspiracy having agreed to commit and abet each other in commission of offence of criminal breach of trust and offence of criminal misconduct in connection with the allotment of GDQ plots. M.S.Jaffar Sait and his family were allotted plots in survey No.76 in part at Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai.
  4. The Petitioner was allotted plot no. 540 at Thiruvanmiyur (Kamaraj
    Nagar), Chennai admeasuring 4756 sq. ft. for a total consideration of Rs. 1,26,60,500/- (page 62).
  5. The Respondent registered a case in Crime No. 7 /AC/2011 against the seven accused persons, including the Petitioner, for committing offences under Sections 120(B) & 409 IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of
    the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Section 109 IPC (FIR @ page 81 Chargesheet @ page 87).
  6. It is important to note that the chargesheet against the husband of the Petitioner was filed even without obtaining sanction from the competent authority. The chargesheet by the prosecution agency was filed under the deemed sanction on the basis of opinion of the then Advocate General of Tamil Nadu. In fact, when the sanction was sought, it was rejected for lack of any grounds.
  7. Pursuant to the memo filed by the prosecution agency the husband of the Petitioner preferred a Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Crl. O.P. No. 13711/2019 before High Court of Madras praying for quashing of the proceedings against him in CC No. 25/2013. The High Court allowed the Petition and quashed the chargesheet in C.C. No.25/2013 filed before Special Judge, qua Accused No, 1/ the Petitioner’s husband (page 145).
  8. SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 20404/2019 filed against that order was also quashed by this Court (page 159). After the dismissal of Special Leave Petition by this Hon’ble Court the quashing of charges against the husband of the Petitioner who is the main accused in the case, has attained finality and in view of the same the charges against the Petitioner are not sustainable.
  9. As the charges against main accused were quashed, the Petitioner herein had preferred a quashing Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings against the petitioner as well as petition for stay.
  10. Apart from accused no. 1, the High Court of Madras vide order dated 24.10.2019 (page 161) quashed the criminal proceedings against accused no. 3- K.Murugaiya, the then Executive Engineer, Besant Nagar Division, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai who allegedly converted 7 plots into 6 plots and for the convenience of A-1 & A-5 for joint development and got CMDA approval. The order of the High Court was confirmed by this Court on 01.10.2021 in SLP (Crl.) No. 8255/2021 (page 178) when it refused to entertain a SLP against its order.

Submissions

A. The charges against the husband of the Petitioner who allegedly has conspired with others to get the allotment done in favour of the Petitioner are already quashed and therefore the charges against the Petitioner do not survive.

B. There can be no question of subjecting the Petitioner to trial when the case against the main accused persons has been quashed. In any case, on merits, the Petitioner’s husband was neither entrusted with the property nor were any of the properties under his control as a public servant As such the allegation of commission of offence under Sec. 13(1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not maintainable.
C. No valuable thing or pecuniary advantage was obtained for the Petitioner by her husband, either through corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant.
Acc. Name High Court

D. The petitioner has not obtained any advantage through her husband as she was never entrusted either with the property of the TNHB or with any dominion over the TNHB property. As such the alleged offence under Sec. 409 IPC is not maintainable.

E. The family of the petitioner has suffered the loss for a total sum of Rs.32,86,442/- due to the penalty of Rs. 14,03,040 on cancellation of the earlier allotment and the enhanced price of Rs. 18,83,402/- for the Petitioner’s allotment. Therefore no undue gain was received by the Petitioner from the said allotment.

F. The request of the Petitioner offering to surrender her interest in Plot No.540 was declined by the TNHB on the ground that there is no loss to the TNHB or to the Government.

Status of other Accused Persons

A1 Jaffar Sait
(IPS) Proceedings quashed by the
High Court vide order
23.05.2019
(Pg.145-158)

Findings
No sanction was granted.
(Para.25, Pg.157)
SLP f agains dismis Court 04.07.2 (Pg.
A2 M. Parvin
(Petitioner) Quashing Petition filed by the petitioner dismissed by the High Court by impugned
Judgment dated 11.11.2022
Presen petitio

Petitio the cas has be Court
29.08.2
A3 K. Murugaiah Proceedings quashed by the
High Court vide order
24.10.2019
(Pg.161-169)

Findings
No loss was caused to Housing
Board
(Para.11 Pg.168) SLP f High dismis Court
01.10.2
A4 K.
Rajamanickam
(IAS) Proceedings quashed by the
High Court vide order
10.08.2023
(Pg.119-125 Add. Doc.)

Findings
• No sanction was granted (Para 6 Pg.121 Add. Doc.)
• Case of A.4 is at par with the case of A.1 and enure
15
i 

    in his favour  (Para 7, Pg.

123 Add. Doc.)
A5
R.
Durgashankar Proceedings quashed by the
High Court vide order
29.08.2023
(Pg.127-140 Add. Doc.)

A 6 is Minister
I Periyasmay

Findings

A7 Udayakumar • Housing Board did not sustain any loss in the allotment of plots (Para.10, Page 137 Add. Doc.)
• There was no unlawful or wrongful gain by A2 and A5 (Para.12, Pg. 138 Add.
Doc.)
Dr. RAM SANKAR
Counsel for the Petioner
[23/04, 07:35] sekarreporter1: 👍

You may also like...