JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to quash the final report in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2019, on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the first accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashment of Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2019, on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri. 2. The respondent-police has filed a final report in Crime No.1/AC/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and read with 190 I.P.C alleging that; a) The accused (A-1) B.Dharmaraj was formerly working as Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Harur, Dharmapuri District, during the period from 03.02.2014 to 28.05.2014. He is a public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. b) The accused (A-2) R.Murali, is an Ex-Serviceman and was formerly working temporarily as Jeep Driver to A-1 during the period from March 2012 to October 2018 and he is a private individual. c) The defacto complainant K.Lakshmanan presented his application seeking quarry license to P.Saravanan, Deputy Director of Mines and Minerals, Dharmapuri on 10.01.2014 for installing a Gravel Crusher in the name of "Sri Amman Blue Metals" at Ganapathypatti Revenue Village in S.F.Nos.2/5F, 3/3B, 4/2B and 4/3 in Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District. d) The application was forwarded to A1 by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Harur for verification. On receipt of the application, A1 directed Kathiravan, Village Administrative Officer of Kil Morappur Revenue Village to come to the place where the crusher has to be installed along with relevant revenue records on 25.02.2014. e) On 25.02.2014, A1 along with A2 came to the field of defacto complainant for inspection at about 16.00 hrs by Jeep bearing Registration No.TN 29 G 0653. At that time, witnesses K.Sivalingam and K.Ponmalai who are the owners of agricultural land adjacent to the land of K.Lakshmanan also arrived there. At that time, A1 demanded Rs.60,000/- as gratification other than legal remuneration from the defacto complainant as motive for sending up his report with recommendation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Harur. At that time, witnesses K.Sivalingam and K.Ponmalai who are the owners of agricultural land adjacent to the land of K.Lakshmanan also arrived there. At that time, A1 demanded Rs.60,000/- as gratification other than legal remuneration from the defacto complainant as motive for sending up his report with recommendation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Harur. f) When the defacto complainant expressed his inability of arranging such huge money, A1 directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as advance amount for the time being and instructed him to pay the balance amount of Rs.55,000/- later and A1 directed the defacto complainant to give the bribe amount to A2 . When the defacto complainant gave a sum of Rs.5,000/- to A2, he accepted the same on behalf of A1 and additionally demanded Rs.500/- from him for himself. Accordingly, the defacto complainant gave Rs.500/- to A2 and after receipt of Rs.5000/-, A2 retained Rs.500/- for himself and gave balance amount of Rs.5000/- to A1 on the spot in the presence of witnesses, Sivalingam and Ponmalai. g) Further, A1 insisted the defacto complainant to give the balance amount Rs.55,000/- early and then only he could forward his inspection report to higher ups. After that, Kathiravan, Village Administrative Officer and his Village Assistant Thavamani came to Sri Amman Blue Metal on 25.02.2014 at about 16.30hrs and showed the revenue records to A1 and verification was completed. Thereby A1 has committed the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and A2 Tr.Murali abetted the offence punishable under Section 7 read with 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. h) In the course of the same transaction and in furtherance of the above said demand, on 25.02.2014 at about 16.00hrs, at the site of proposed Sri Amman Blue Metals in Ganapathypatti Village, Tr.B.Dharamaraj (A1) being a public servant, by corrupt and illegal means and by abusing his official position, obtained for himself Rs.5000/- as pecuniary advantage from the defacto complainant Lakshmanan, through A2 Murali, in the presence of witnesses Sivalingam and Ponmalai, for sending inspection report to Revenue Divisional Officer, Harur for installing a gravel crusher by name Sri Amman Blue Metals by the defacto complainant and his partners, and thereby accused B.Dharmaraj committed an offence of criminal misconduct punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. 3. The other part is with regard to the second accused namely, R.Murali Driver said to have received Rs.5,000/- 4. It is not a trap case nor disproportionate of asset case. 5. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above Criminal Original Petition are as under:- a) The petitioner was working as Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Arbitrator, NH-844, Dharmapuri under the State Government of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner joined the state service as Assistant in Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretariat on 07.02.2000 and the petitioner have put in sincere and honest service for 21 years. b) The petitioner was working as Tahsildar at Harur, Dharmapuri District, during the period from 03.02.2014 to 28.05.2014. The petitioner refused to favour some quarry owners. The petitioner seized lot of vehicles which were used for illegal sand smuggling. They found the petitioner to be a stumbling block and they hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the petitioner from the service. Some persons in the Revenue Department and Police Department abetted, connived and collaborated with them. As a result, a false complaint of bribery and corruption was lodged against the petitioner. Crime Number 1/AC/2016 was registered against the petitioner and the driver of the vehicle, by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department on 28.03.2016. c) The investigation was completed and final report was filed against the petitioner and the driver. The petitioner was arrayed as A1 and the driver was arrayed as A2. d) On earlier occasions, fake complaints were filed against the petitioner and the petitioner got discharged in all those cases. During his work period, on 03.04.2014, the petitioner has seized the Lorry bearing Registration Number TN 30 D 8940 and handed over to R.D.O. The owner of the vehicle Mrs.Govindhi, who is the member of the Lorry Owners' Association, made a complaint against the petitioner, to the District Collector, alleging that the petitioner demanded bribe money of Rs.20,000/- for the release of the vehicle. Full enquiry was conducted and the complaint was closed as unproved on 29.08.2018. e) The documents and records obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act (RTI), would demonstrate and expose the falsity in the present complaint against him. f) Thus this petition to quash the final report and further proceeding against the petitioner in the Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2019 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri. 6. e) The documents and records obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act (RTI), would demonstrate and expose the falsity in the present complaint against him. f) Thus this petition to quash the final report and further proceeding against the petitioner in the Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2019 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri. 6. Mr.K.Selvakumaraswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that: a) the petitioner was working as Tahsildar in Harur between 03.02.2014 and 28.05.2014, and because of his strict actions against sand smuggling and seizing lorries, the Harur Lorry Transport Owners' Association had turned enemical towards the petitioner. b) The association set-up it's disgruntled members to make false complaints of "demanding bribe money" against the petitioner. Disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were initiated on several occasions and all of them ended in discharge and exoneration. c) Since, they could not succeed in other cases, the association set-up Mr.K.Lashmanan, one of the partners of M/s.Amman Blue Metals, to lodge a complaint against the petitioner and the driver (A2) before DVAC, alleging demand and acceptance of bribe. d) It is the further case of the petitioner that the defactocomplainant K.Lakshmanan submitted application on 10.01.2014 to Dharmapuri District Collector for issuance of quarry license for the lands in Ganapathypatti Village, which is located within Harur Taluk where the petitioner was working as Tahsildar. That application bearing number 9/2014 (Mines) was forwarded by the Mining and Geology Department in Dharmapuri to the Harur, RDO on 24.01.2014, which was received on 29.01.2014 and the Distribution Number assigned was 634/2014. 7. Based upon the above factual position, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that: a) in the above complaint dated 09.07.2015 lodged against the petitioner, there is no mention about the date and time of occurrence. b) The letter dated 20.07.2021, submitted by the respondent police to the Harur Tahsildar, mentions the concerned file number as 5769/2014 (E3). In prosecution document No.8, it is also mentioned that the concerned file number is 5769/2014 (E3). This document reached Harur Taluk office only on 19.11.2014, as per the Distribution Register received under RTI. During that period, the petitioner was not working as Harur Tahsildar, as the petitioner was transferred much before that on 28.05.2014 itself. 8. In prosecution document No.8, it is also mentioned that the concerned file number is 5769/2014 (E3). This document reached Harur Taluk office only on 19.11.2014, as per the Distribution Register received under RTI. During that period, the petitioner was not working as Harur Tahsildar, as the petitioner was transferred much before that on 28.05.2014 itself. 8. In the typed set of papers, the petitioner also filed Distribution Register received under R.T.I for the period from 03.02.2014 to 28.05.2014 i.e., the period of tenure of the petitioner and contended that the file No.5769/2014(E3) was not included and file never reached him, during his tenure at the relevant period. 9. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that inordinate delay has occurred at each stage, as follows:- a) Occurrence was allegedly on 25.02.2014. b) Complaint was lodged on 09.07.2015 after a delay of 490 days. c) The F.I.R was registered on 28.03.2016 after a delay of 263 days. d) The investigation was started on 08.05.2017, after a delay of 406 days. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the sanction order dated 09.01.2019 passed by the District Collector is not sustainable in law. Because it was based on the "draft model" submitted by the respondent police. The document received under R.T.I exposes this fact. It is a settled principle of law that the sanction granted on "draft model" is invalid and for that reason alone the sanction has to be quashed. The petitioner has preferred another petition to quash the sanction order also. 11. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) contended that the investigation has been completed and the allegations made in the complaint are matter for an enquiry and therefore, the same cannot be gone into in the quashment application and further allegation in the complaint with regard to statement of witnesses viz., L.Ws.9 to 13 recorded on 23.06.2017 30.06.2017, 08.06.2017, 21.06.2017 and 20.06.2017 respectively are matter for trial. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2315 of 2019 dated 02.08.2019 while dealing with the service matter, relating to the suspension and revocation thereof, the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to observe which is discussed infra. 13. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2315 of 2019 dated 02.08.2019 while dealing with the service matter, relating to the suspension and revocation thereof, the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to observe which is discussed infra. 13. This Court is keeping in mind the settled principle of law that in a petition for 'quashment of F.I.R or a charge sheet' the Court shall not endeavour into conducting of 'mini trial' in the quashment petition. 14. The sum and substance of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are fourfold a) i.e., there is an inordinate delay in bringing the complaint and initiation of the criminal proceedings few days before viz., 4 days before promotion of the petitioner as a Sub-Collector; b) the alleged demand of illegal gratification, as per prosecution theory was made on 25.02.2014, while the complaint was given only on 01.07.2015 and the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption registered the case on 28.03.2016 and as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2315 of 2019, and c) he further contended that the entire episode of registration of the complaint is at the instance of the association against him in order to prevent his promotion as a Sub-Collector which he was likely to assume within 3 days of the registration of the complaint and hence, all the complaints have been "anti-dated" so as to make it believe that as if a complaint of allegation of demand of bribe has been projected only with a view to stall his promotion as sub-Collector and relied upon observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court at Para 7 of the above said Writ Appeal. 15. The second leg of the argument is that the petitioner had formerly worked as Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Harur, Dharmapuri District during the period from 03.02.2014 to 28.05.2014 and the alleged file in respect of the said M/s.Sri Amman Blue Metal, reached the office of the Tahsildar only after he left on 28.05.2014 and relied upon by the application submitted and information received by him through the R.T.I. 16. a) The learned counsel contended that the 'Investigation Officer' has relied upon the 'despatch register' maintained in the office of the R.D.O, Harur, however, though he collected the "Tapal Received register" in the Taluk Office, he had burked the same in order to falsely implicate the petitioner as an accused to prevent his promotion as a Sub-Collector and relied upon the reply given in the R.T.I which is discussed infra and also challenged the sanction granted by the L.W.1 as to the point of non-application of mind by referring to some of the contents of the statement recorded from L.W.1, (the appointing Authority). b) When this Court has put the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the scope of the quashment petition and to deal with the sanction of the prosecution, the learned counsel has restricted his arguments on the sanction only in respect of ''two dates mentioned" in the said document namely the District Collector, Dharmapuri has granted sanction on 09.01.2019 and purported to have perused the statement of the accused A1 and A2 while the statement of the first accused and the A2 has been recorded only on 27.06.2019, how can it be possible for the District Collector Tmt.S.Malarvizhi, I.A.S., to peruse the statement of the accused on 09.01.2019 when said accused statement was recorded only June 2019 and reiterated the point that the entire case is based upon "anti-dating the entire proceedings" and even the "sanction order is of no exemption". 17. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) was heard. 18. The case of the prosecution in brief is that while the petitioner Dharmaraj was working as a Tahsildar on special duty during the election period from 03.02.2014 to 28.05.2014 on the receipt of the file for installation of crusher in one Blue Metal in Harur Taluk, he inspected the site and demanded Rs.60,000/- as a gratification other than the legal remuneration from the defactocomplainant for which the defacto-complainant alleged to have paid Rs.5,000/- to the driver A2 and Rs.500/- separately for A2. The statement of accused is to the effect that he has not received any amount. The statement of accused is to the effect that he has not received any amount. The log book of the car attached to the office of the Tahsildar has been produced wherein on the alleged date, the first accused along with the second accused said to have travelled 220 Kms per day for covering various aspects and they also visited the Kil Morappur Revenue village as a greater place for the election purpose and hence, I find that merely because there is a entry in the log book, the same cannot be said to be the place of demand of bribe. 19. Taking into consideration the scope of the enquiry in the quashment petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., I am restricting myself within the scope that has been laid down in the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court. 20. Admittedly, there is a huge delay of 17 months between the filing of complaint, alleged date of demand and registration of the F.I.R and the petitioner was suspended few days before he could be promoted to the post of the Sub-Collector. The alleged illegal gratification was made on 25.02.2014, while the complaint was given only on 09.07.2015 and thereafter, the Director of Vigilance and Anti- Corruption registered the case on 28.03.2016. Hence, I find that there is an inordinate delay of 17 months in bringing the matter. Though the case was registered as early as on 2016, the same was kept in dark and only few days before his promotion as a Sub-Collector, it appears that the Department tuned into service and he was suspended and his junior officer has been accommodated in the Sub-Collector instead of petitioner herein. 21. When the suspension order was challenged by way of W.P.No.67 of 2009 the same was dismissed and on appeal W.A.No.2315 of 2019 the Division Bench of this Court has observed in Para 4 that there was no reason assigned for the delay in preferring the complaint. It is a delay of 18 months. At Para 7, it is observed that "there are prima facie materials produced by the appellant (the petitioner herein) to show that it was a false complaint of bribe which was preferred against him to stall his promotion as a Deputy Collector. 22. It is a delay of 18 months. At Para 7, it is observed that "there are prima facie materials produced by the appellant (the petitioner herein) to show that it was a false complaint of bribe which was preferred against him to stall his promotion as a Deputy Collector. 22. This Court is reproducing the above order, but however not influenced by the said observation made therein and decide to dispose of this quashment petition purely on the records available on this case. 23. It remains to be stated that the District Collector Tmt.S.Malarvizhi I.A.S., in a proceedings R.O.C.No.6343/16/A2 dated 09.01.2019 has granted sanction for prosecution pursuant to the order made by the Director of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. At the penultimate paragraph the District Collector has observed that on a careful examination of materials such as copies of F.I.R, statement of witnesses through Tr.B.Dharmaraj and Tr.Murali and other connected documents. 24. It remains to be stated that after the District Collector perused the statement of the accused A1 (the petitioner herein), sanction was accorded on 09.01.2019. As per the final report filed before the learned Magistrate the statement of the petitioner A1 P.Dharmaraj was recorded only on 27.06.2019. 25. This Court is unable to comprehend itself as to how the District Collector could grant sanction order in the month of January 2019, when the statement of the accused was obtained and recorded by the Investigation Officer on 27.06.2019, (as per the statement of accused filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate) and hence I find that I am unable to uphold that there is an application of mind by the District Collector in according the sanction. 26. Yet another point is that though this Court rarely hold that a sanction is not valid or bad in law for non-application of mind on the face of it, when the mistake glaring on the face of the record as in the instant case, the District Collector, accorded permission for prosecution on 09.01.2019, when specifically stated to have considered the statement of accused is recorded only on 27.06.2019 and hence I have no hesitation to hold that the sanction accorded by Tmt. Malarvizhi, I.A.S., the then District Collector Dharmapuri suffers from non application of mind and also compels this Court to hold that as contended by the petitioner, it is anapproval of draft statement of sanction, that has been given by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department. 27 a) Yet another point is that it is not a case of trap as stated supra. A complaint said to have been generated from the President of Blue Metal Association, after a very long time petitioner was transferred from the place. The subsequent Tahsildar has inspected the property and granted sanction for the installation of the crusher at the "Amman Blue Metals". b) As per the information furnished to the petitioner under R.T.I, the file in connection with thereto is application No.9/14 it was forwarded by the concerned Department to the R.D.O on 24.01.2014 received by the R.D.O on 29.01.2014 Distribution No is 634/2014. As per the document filed along with the charge sheet it was despatched on 07.02.2014 as per the R.T.I information furnished to the petitioner, the said file reached the Tahsildar office only on 19.11.2014. However the petitioner has left on transfer after the election work as early as on 28.05.2014 and hence, I find that during the period of tenure of 3 months when the petitioner was posted as a Election Tahsildar, at that the said point of time the application given by the "Amman Blue Metals" (under the application number) has not reached the taluk office, in view of the said entry found in the "Tapal Received Register" at Taluk office of Harur. 28. It remains to be stated that these documents has also been collected by the Investigation Officer however appears to have been "burked by the prosecution" and such an action on the part of the investigation officer is hereby deprecated. 29. Admittedly, the petitioner was posted as a Election Tahsildar for a brief period of 03.02.2014 and 28.05.2014. The allegation of demand of bribe for grant of the Blue Metal licence for crusher for the Amman Blue Metal, reached the office of the Tahsildar as per the "Tapal Received Register at Taluk office" only on 19.11.2014 which is kept and maintained in the "usual course of business" and it was earmarked for E3 section. The allegation of demand of bribe for grant of the Blue Metal licence for crusher for the Amman Blue Metal, reached the office of the Tahsildar as per the "Tapal Received Register at Taluk office" only on 19.11.2014 which is kept and maintained in the "usual course of business" and it was earmarked for E3 section. However the petitioner has already transferred from the said station on 28.05.2014, which makes it clear that "all is not well" with the commencement of the complaint and completion of investigation and filing of the charge sheet and hence, I am of the considered view that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner to stall his promotion as a Sub Collector as contended by the counsel for the petitioner is clearly demonstrated and this Court is unable to digest itself about the fact that though the "Tapal Received Register of the Taluk office" has been collected and taken note of by the Investigation Officer, a vital document to show that the file has reached the office of the Taluk office only 6 months after the petitioner has transferred from the office in the month of May 2014 and hence, I find that the entire gamut projected from the complaint appears to be handiwork of some other person wherein the petitioner himself is made a victim of the disciplinary proceedings. 30. In view of the discussions in the preceding paragraphs, I find that the finding rendered by the Division Bench regarding the delay of 14 months in preferring the complaint and registration of the F.I.R and prima facie material produced by the petitioner that it was a false complaint of bribe which was fabricated against him to stall his promotion as a Deputy Collector and non application of the District Collector in grant of sanction even without receiving the statement of the accused which was admittedly signed by the accused and recorded by the Investigation Officer only in the month of June. However an anti dated document seems to have been obtained as if a sanction has been obtained from the District Collector even in the month of January without there being a statement of the accused which was specifically referred to by the District Collector shows that there is a non application of mind by the then District Collector, Dharmapuri and also demonstrate that the prosecution has "multiple anti dated documents" for the purpose of the prosecuting the petitioner appears to be very glaring on the face of the record. 31. Hence, in view of the above factual matrix and the forgoing discussions in the forgoing paragraphs, I find that the facts of this case squarely falls under clause (g) of the celebrated judgment in State of Haryana and others Vs.Bhajanlal and others in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 , I am constrained to say that the petitioner has made out a perfect case on the victimization in the name of vigilance case and hence I am inclined to exercise my power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and accordingly, hold that continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law and therefore, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2019, on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri, against the first accused is quashed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P is closed.