A DHANAVATHI AMMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is the second accused in the case in Cr.No.8/2000, has filed the above criminal original petition praying to call for the records in the said case from the file of the respondent and quash the same on averments such as that the petitioner is the Deputy Secretary to Government, Union Territory of Pondicherry; that on 24.10.2000, the District Registrar of Pondicherry lodged a complaint against the sister of the petitioner before the respondent complaining commission of various offences under the Indian Penal Code on allegation that with the view to default one Ravichandran, she prepared forged power of attorney with the assistance of the Sub Registrar, Oulgaret in which the petitioner has also been arrayed as an accused on ground that she favoured the offence by misuse of her official position.

(2.) The petitioner would further submit that the respondent, on the basis of the said complaint, registered the said case on 27.10.2000 under Sections 468,471 and 419 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court and in the Crl.O.Ps.23834 of 2000 and 3277 of 2001 respectively filed by her sister and herself, this Court, by order dated 20.9.2002, directed the Investigating Officer to continue with the investigation and to file a report since the same was in progress; that the respondent has now completed the investigation and even though no material was available against the petitioner, the respondent is dragging the matter at the instance of those who are ill-disposed of with her in order to keep the matter alive so as to stall her legitimate promotion. On such averments, the petitioner has come forward to file the above criminal original petition.

(3.) During arguments, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, besides laying emphasis on the factual position of the case brought forth in the above criminal original petition, would also submit the following judgments: 1. SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, WEST BENGAL vs. MOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS (1975 SCC (Cri) 156) 2.PEPSI FOODS LTD. AND ANOTHER vs. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS (1998 SCC (Cri) 1400) 3.G.SAGAR SURI AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ((2000) 2 SCC 636) 4.DINESH DUTT JOSHI vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER ((2001) 8 SCC 570) 5.SUNIL KUMAR vs. ESCORTS YAMAHA MOTORS LTD. AND OTHERS ((1999) 8 SCC 468) 6.MADHAVRAO JIWAJI RAO SCINDIA AND ANOTHER ETC. vs. SAMBHAJIRAO CHANDROJIRAO ANGRE AND OTHERS ETC. (1988 CRL.L.J.853 = AIR 1988 SC 709)