FIR in minister wealth case: 2 HC judges give a split verdict

FIR in minister wealth case: 2 HC judges give a split verdict

Sureshkumar.K@timesgroup.com

Chennai:  05.03.2021 

In a rare disagreement, a division bench of the Madras high court on Thursday passed a split verdict over filing an FIR for corruption against dairy development minister K T Rajenthra Bhalaji, with one judge favouring an FIR and another calling it unnecessary.

The issue has now been referred to the chief justice for being sent to a third judge.

The allegation against the minister is that he had amassed wealth disproportionate to his income starting from his days as vice-president of Tiruthangal town panchayat in Virudhunagar district in1996.

While Justice M Sathyanarayanan directed the DVAC to register an FIR, Justice R Hemalatha said she did not find any prima facie case against Bhalaji warranting an FIR.

DVAC submitted 754-page ‘preliminary inquiry’ report

Any further action in this case would not serve any useful purpose and it would be only like flogging a dead horse,” she said and dismissed the PIL.

In view of the dissenting order the case has now been forwarded to the chief justice for suitable action.

It all began in 2013 when on R Mahendran filed a public interest writ petition accusing the minister of having declared that he had no known sources of income and that he was not even an income tax assessee, when he contested the assembly elections in 2011.

On the contrary, in the same declaration, the minister claimed to be in possession of several movable and immovable assets, the petitioner alleged. Therefore, he wanted the court to direct the DVAC to register an FIR against the minister based on his complaint and probe the case.

During the course of hearing, the DVAC submitted a 754-page ‘preliminary inquiry’ report and gave a clean chit to the minister. It concluded that prima facie no case was made against the minister to register an FIR. Taken aback by the detailed inquiry conducted by the DVAC when the object was only to make a preliminary inquiry to ascertain as to whether any cognizable offence had been made out in the complaint or not, the bench refused to close the plea.

The court wondered as to how DVAC could expect the court to drop all proceedings on the basis of an exhaustive investigation conducted without even registering an FIR.

The court was taken aback by the DVAC’s detailed inquiry when the objective was only to a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether any cognizable offence had been made out in the complaint