JUDGMENT : 1. Mr. Sivamani the petitioner herein, is arrayed as first accused along with Mr.Parasmal Jain (second accused) in C.C.6 of 2016 on the file of special judge for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai. 2. The prime contention of the petitioner is that, the final report is outcome of embellished version of a fake complaint given by one Vijayalakshmi after all her attempts to foist a case against him got foiled by intervention of the court. Ultimately, suppressing the earlier proceedings she obtained order from the High Court directing the first respondent to register her complaint. The Respondent police without applying the mind and without taking note of the earlier orders passed by the High court in the matter, has registered a case against him under various sections of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and laid the final report, which is illegal and unsustainable. Hence the proceedings is liable to be quashed. 3. The said contention is refuted by the first respondent through its counter, wherein it is submitted that, Sri.S.Vijayalakshmi has filed a petition before this Court in Crl.OP.No.16108 of 2014 seeking direction to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to register the FIR and investigate on her petition dated 14.6.2014. In compliance to the direction, a case has been registered by DVAC in Crime Number 4/2014/HQ under section 448, 384 and 506 IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner and 4 others and taken up for investigation. On examining 41 witnesses and marked 50 documents collected in the course of investigation the following facts got unraveled. “7.The petitioner/A-1 Tr.K.Sivamani, took up investigation in the case in C-2 Elephant Gage P.S.Cr.No.175/2012, u/s 420 and 506(ii) IPC, wherein the said Tmt.S.Vijayalakshmi and her son Tr.S.Thiagarajan stand as accused. On 07.02.2012 at about 09.40 hrs. the Petitioner/A-1 Tr.K.Sivamani has sent his subordinate Tr.P.Rajendran, Sub-Inspector of Police (Crime) to bring the accused concerned in C-2 Elephant Gate Police Station Crime No.175/2012 for enquiry. Accordingly, Tr.P.Rajendran and Head Constable Tr.T.Raju went to the residence of the accused Tmt.Vijayalakshmi and Tr.S.Thiagarajan situated at No.1/120, Annapillai Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai, where the accused Tr.S.Thiyagarajan created ruckus. To handle the situation Tr.P.Rajendran, S.I of Police and Tr.Sivamani. The petitioner proceeded to the spot and brought the accused Tr.S.Thiagarajan to the C-2 Elephant Gate Police Station for enquiry. 8. Accordingly, Tr.P.Rajendran and Head Constable Tr.T.Raju went to the residence of the accused Tmt.Vijayalakshmi and Tr.S.Thiagarajan situated at No.1/120, Annapillai Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai, where the accused Tr.S.Thiyagarajan created ruckus. To handle the situation Tr.P.Rajendran, S.I of Police and Tr.Sivamani. The petitioner proceeded to the spot and brought the accused Tr.S.Thiagarajan to the C-2 Elephant Gate Police Station for enquiry. 8. As soon as the arrival of accused Tr.S.Thiagarajan to the Police Station, Advocates representing both parties assembled at the police station. Initially advocates representing the accused Tr.S.Thiagarajan met the Petitioner/A1 and told him they were willing to settle the issue outside and also requested him not to arrest till then. They further told him that they wanted to make compromise settlement. Subsequently the petitioner/A1 allowed them to settle the issue amicably outside the police station.” 4. The Learned counsel contented that, there are substantive evidence to show that the petitioner has brought Tr.Thiyagarajan to the police station on 7/2/2012 at about 11.00 hours and allowed the complainant and accused party to negotiate, which resulted in settling the issue for Rs.28 lakhs to be paid to Parasmal Jain, (2nd Accused) and allowed Thiyagarajan to go out of the police station without making entry in the records of the police station. Since there is no evidence against the others named in the FIR and no material to charge the petitioner and Parasmal Jain except for offences under section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, final report has been laid down against the petitioner for offences under section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and against Parasmal Jain for offence under section 109 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act for a abetting the public servant. Since, there are enough material to proceed against the petitioner and every likelihood of him getting convicted, there is no reason to interfere with the criminal proceedings. Therefore the petition has to be dismissed. 5. Since, there are enough material to proceed against the petitioner and every likelihood of him getting convicted, there is no reason to interfere with the criminal proceedings. Therefore the petition has to be dismissed. 5. Since, the case carries a checkered history of being agitated before the court through various petitions filed by the sparing parties, it is just and necessary to place the background of the case succinctly narrated by the Honorable Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian (As he then was) in the earlier round of litigation while disposing of writ petitions in W.P.No.6663 of 2015, 22604 of 2014 and Criminal Original Petitions in Crl.O.P.Nos.31447, 26757 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2015, by a common order dated 21.09.2015, wherein, in paragraph Nos.1 to 10, the Hon'ble Single Judge has held as follows:- “It appears that on a complaint lodged by one Mr.Parasmal H.Jain, both on his behalf and on behalf of three others, made directly to the Commissioner of Police of the City of Chennai on 16.09.2011, a First Information Report came to be registered on the file of C2-Elephant Gate Police Station in Crime No.175 of 2012, on 27.1.2012, for alleged offences under Sections 420 read with 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code, against a lady by name Mrs.S.Vijayalakshmi and her son Thiyagarajan. It is claimed that subsequently, the complainant Parasmal H.Jain and the persons accused, namely, Vijayalakshmi and Thiyagarajan entered into a memo of compromise on 7.2.2012 and the complaint in Crime No.175 of 2012 did not proceed further. 2. However, Mrs.S.Vijayalakshmi gave a complaint on 23.3.2012 to the Home Secretary, the Director General of Police as 5 well as the Police Commissioner, claiming that on 7.2.2012 at about 9.30 a.m., a Sub-Inspector of Police, by name, Rajendran, attached to C-2 Elephant Gate Police station, visited her house and informed her that she and her son were summoned by the Inspector of Police (Crimes) by name, Sivamani. According to the said complaint dated 23.3.2012, the Sub-Inspector of Police abused her and her son and dragged her son to the Police station and that they were compelled to enter into a memo of compromise, by the Inspector as well as the Sub-Inspector of Police. 3. According to the said complaint dated 23.3.2012, the Sub-Inspector of Police abused her and her son and dragged her son to the Police station and that they were compelled to enter into a memo of compromise, by the Inspector as well as the Sub-Inspector of Police. 3. Since no action was taken on the said complaint, S.Vijayalakshmi filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.23207 of 2012, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking a direction to the Commissioner of Police as well as the Director General of Police to register her complaint dated 22.3.2012 and to investigate the same. But the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 28.09.2012. 4. Thereafter, the said S.Vijayalakshmi filed a writ petition in W.P.No.26387 of 2012. The prayer in the said writ petition was also for a writ of mandamus to direct the Commissioner of Police to 6 consider her representation dated 23.3.2012. It is relevant to note that the said Vijayalakshmi appears to have given two complaints, one dated 22.3.2012 and another dated 23.3.2012. While the complaint dated 22.3.2012 was for taking disciplinary action against the erring police officials, the complaint dated 23.3.2012 was for taking departmental action and criminal action against them. 5. But the said writ petition in W.P.No.26387 of 2012 was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 30.11.2012. 6. Thereafter, Vijayalakshmi's son, namely, S.Thiyagarajan, filed a complaint dated 30.11.2012 with the Commissioner of Police, seeking action against the Inspector and Sub-Inspector of Police. It was followed by another petition in Crl.O.P.No.30683 of 2012 for a direction to the Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Inspector of Police, to register the First Information Report, on the basis of his complaint. In the said writ petition, it was brought to the notice of the learned Judge that the previous petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the mother S.Vijayalakshmi was already dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, on the basis of the said statement, criminal original petition in Crl.O.P.No.30683 of 2012 was 7 disposed of by a learned Judge, by an order dated 24.1.2013, directing the petitioner therein, namely, S.Thiagarajan, to work out his remedies under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. However, the mother thereafter gave another complaint dated 10.07.2013 against the very same police officers and came up with a fresh petition under Section 482, in Criminal O.P.No.30354 of 2013. 7. However, the mother thereafter gave another complaint dated 10.07.2013 against the very same police officers and came up with a fresh petition under Section 482, in Criminal O.P.No.30354 of 2013. At this time, the mother was armed with a communication sent by the Special Reporter of the National Human Rights Commission, advising the Director General of Police to look into the matter and take appropriate action against the erring police officers. But unfortunately, for the lady, the communication of the Special Reporter was held by a learned Judge of this Court to be of no avail and to be of no legal value in terms of the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Therefore, the third attempt made by S.Vijayalakshmi to have her complaint registered also failed when her petition in Crl.O.P.No.30354 of 2013 was dismissed by the order dated 18.2.2014. 8. Thereafter, S.Vijayalakshmi gave yet another complaint, this time to the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, on 8 14.06.2014 and came up with a fresh attack in the form of Crl.O.P.No.16108 of 2014. Gaining by the past experience, the lady not only suppressed the previous proceedings, but also included only the officers connected with the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption as the respondents. Therefore, as was expected by her, the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption and his subordinates, who alone were impleaded as parties, to Criminal O.P.No.16108 of 2014, could not bring it to the notice of this Court that three earlier attempts made by Vijayalakshmi and one attempt made by her son had already failed. 9. In Criminal O.P.No.16108 of 2014, this Court directed a status report to be filed. In the status report, it was indicated that irrespective of whatever had happened to the complaints given both by S.Vijayalakshmi and by her son to the regular police, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption took the complaint dated 14.6.2014 to file, numbered it as 4704/2014/POL/CC-I and a preliminary enquiry had already been ordered. Therefore, on the basis of the status report so filed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption about the registration of a preliminary enquiry and also on the basis of the communication of the Special Reporter of the National Rights Human 9 Commission, another learned Judge allowed Crl.O.P.No.16108 of 2014 by an order dated 3.7.2014. Therefore, on the basis of the status report so filed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption about the registration of a preliminary enquiry and also on the basis of the communication of the Special Reporter of the National Rights Human 9 Commission, another learned Judge allowed Crl.O.P.No.16108 of 2014 by an order dated 3.7.2014. This decision was actually based upon the dictate of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and others, reported in 2013 (4) MLJ (Crl) 579 SC. 10. Therefore based upon the said order, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption ultimately registered a First Information Report, in Crime No.4 of 2014, on 18.7.2014, against six persons, four of whom were the complainants, namely, Parasmal Jain and others in Crime No.175 of 2012. The Inspector of Police (Crime) and the Sub Inspector of Police (Crime) attached to the Elephant Gate Police Station were arrayed as the fifth and sixth accused in Crime No.4 of 2014 by the Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. The offences, for which, the FIR was registered, were under Sections 448, 384 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.” 6. Thus, from the said judgment, it is obvious that, though, the learned judge found that, FIR against the petitioner and others was registered pursuant to the order passed by the Court obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and hence, the complaint cannot be quashed at this stage without completion of Investigation, which should be carried out independently without simply going through the content of the complaint. 7. The final report now been filed before the court and the Court had also taken cognizance on the same indicates that the investigation has been conducted independently and most of the allegations made in the complaint has been found to be true and some of the named accused in the FIR are deleted in the final report as no evidence available against them to prosecute. The final report to prosecute is filed against the petitioner/(A-1) as a public servant, he had misused his official position to make pecuniary advantage for himself and other persons by abusing his position as a public servant and against Parasmal Jain/( A-2) for abetting the public servant to commit offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 8. 8. This Court can invoke its power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quash the criminal proceedings even if the entire material relied by the prosecution is admitted unchallenged as true, but, the conviction is not probable. If we look at the final report under challenge, we find the documents relied by the prosecution and the statement of the witnesses and the admission of the petitioner herein, based on the complaint given by Parasmal Jain, the petitioner being the Inspector of Police had taken up the investigation of the complaint, has summoned Thiyagarajan the son of the defacto complainant to the police station and kept him under his custody for the whole day. He has let him go out from the police station only after the complainant family has parted away a sum of Rs.28 lacs to Parasmal Jain. The defacto complainant claims that money was given under threat of arrest. Whereas, the petitioner contents that, at the instance of Advocates representing both the parties, compromise was arrived between the parties and Rs.28 lakhs was given to Parasmal Jain in terms of the compromise letter. This being a controverted fact, it is a matter for trial. Without trial, the guilty or innocence of the petitioner cannot be presumed. Hence, the criminal proceedings cannot be short circuited without a full fledged trial under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. In the result, this court finds that there is no merit in the Criminal Original Petition to entertain and accordingly, the same is dismissed.