If Complaint Discloses Prima Facie Allegations, Malafide Intention Of Complainant Of No Consequence: Madras HC Denies Relief To Ma Subramanian

Though Subramaniam had argued that the complaint was filed due to political motive, Justice P Velmurugan noted that there were prima facie materials to proceed with the trial. The court added that when the complaint disclosed prima facie allegations, the malafide intention of the complainant was of no consequence.

“Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions observed that invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not automatic and it should be exercised very very sparingly especially when the offence is under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Once the complaint discloses prima facie allegations, the malafide intention of the complainant is of no consequence,” the court said.

The court added that while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC, the courts could not appreciate the evidence but only evaluate the materials to be prima facie satisfied that there were sufficient grounds to proceed with the trial. The court added that the powers under the Section could not be used as an instrument for the accused to short-circuit the prosecution and bring it to a sudden death.

“Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court, while dealing with the petition seeking quash, cannot appreciate the evidence, but can evaluate material and documents on records to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction about the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Section should not be an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The Court has to see whether there exist prima facie allegations and sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused,” the court added.

The case against Subramanian was that while serving as the Mayor of Chennai Corporation, he abused his position to garb government property belonging to TANSIDCO, which was originally allotted to one S K Kannan. The prosecution further alleged that Subramanian had created false and fabricated documents to make it seem that the property stood in his wife's name and regularised the tenement by obtaining property tax assessment and by securing an electricity connection.

Subramanian argued that he had obtained the property from Kannan for valuable sale consideration. He pointed out that there was no law governing the allotment of tenements relating to TANSIDCO and held that the purchase was not in violation of any provisions of law.

Pointing to the genuineness of the complaint, Subramanian argued that the complaint was filed by a person backed by the AIADMK, the political opponent. He further argued that the Investigation Officer had joined hands with the political opponent and had implicated Subramanian and his wife under the repealed provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus, it was argued that the final report was an abuse of process of law and intended to wreck vengeance against him.

He further argued that proper sanction under Section 17A of the Act was not obtained before investigation which was a fatal defect on the side of the prosecution and would make the entire prosecution liable to be set aside. He also pointed out that the unauthorised occupation was a matter of civil nature and the cloak of criminality could not be given to the same. He argued that the final report did not make out any case to proceed against him and a full-fledged trial would be a waste of judicial time.

The State, on the other hand, submitted that the land belonged to the government and thus no allottee or lesse had a right to alienate the land. It was also pointed out that Subramanian had abused his position as the Mayor and created false documents to claim ownership of government land. It was further argued that Subramanian and his wife had entered into a criminal conspiracy to illegally grab the land although they were not entitled to the same under the government rules.

Though Subramanian argued that the preliminary enquiry was not carried out, the court held that no preliminary enquiry was required as the matter pertained to corruption. The court also noted that the defect in sanction would not affect the entire prosecution case as has been held by the Supreme Court in its decisions.

The court was also prima facie satisfied that Subramanian had forged false documents to make it seem that his wife was the daughter of original allottee, Kannan. The court was thus not inclined to accept Subramanian's argument that the occupation was not illegal and that the prosecution was a motivated one.

Thus, noting that the grounds raised by Subramanian could be taken up at the time of trial, the court dismissed the petition and directed the court to frame charges against the accused and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

Counsel for Petitioner: Dr. S. Muralidhar, Senior Advocate Assisted by Mr. Richardson Wilson, Mr. P. Wilson, Senior Advocate for M/s. P. Wilson Associates

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. J. Ravindran, AAG, Assisted by Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side), Mr. D. Selvam

Case Title: Ma Subramanian and Another v. State and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 127

Case No: Crl.O.P.No.15240 of 2020