M CHINNASUBRAMANIAN Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the First Information Report pending in Crime No.26 of 1995 on the file of the respondent police registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was working as Executive Officer Grade-III of Arulmigu Ekambareswarar Koil, Chettikuppam, Perambalur District and promoted as Executive Officer Grade-II in the year 1988 and posted at Tiruchengode Arthanathiswarar Temple. IT is further submitted that thereafter, he was transferred to Arulmigu Uthamar Koil, Pitchandavar Koil village, Trichy District. The learned senior counsel further submits that a complaint was made against the then Executive Officer, in-charge of the said temple on 11.01.1995 for the alleged occurrence said to have taken place for the period from 01.02.1994 to 31.2.1994 for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned Senior counsel that the petitioner has made a representation to the concerned police authorities and as on date the fact remains that the police has not filed any final report. IT is further submitted that the petitioner has made a representation to the Inspector of Police on 03.12.2007 and in the representation itself it was written by the respondent police to the effect that the First Information Report pending in Crime No.26 of 1995 for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal code was transferred to Samayapuram Police Station on 30.08.1997. IT is further submitted that the petitioner has been driven from pillar to post and he is not in a position to know about the fate of crime No.26 of 1995 registered against him. IT is further contended that in view of the pendency of the First Information Report in this case, the petitioner has been put into great hardship and irreparable loss and he is not in a position to get retirement benefits at the verge of his retirement.