(Recruitment scam case) HC quashes case against Electricity Minister Senthil Balaji after victims enter into a settlement

  

The Madras High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice M Nirmal Kumar quashed a 2018 cheating case against incumbent State Electricity Minister and DMK MLA Senthil Balaji filed in relation to allegations of a 2014 recruitment scam since all thirteen alleged victims had compromised the issue and wanted the case to be quashed. (Shanmugam v. The Inspector of Police and Anr)

The bench quashed the case against the Minister, his brother Ashok Kumar, personal assistant Shanmugam and Metropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC) employee Rajkumar after the Court was apprised that the complainant and thirteen alleged victims of the recruitment scam had arrived at a settlement and had been repaid the money owed and therefore no useful purpose will be served in keeping the case pending.

The Court observed, " The case is still at the stage of trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromised the dispute amicably among themselves. This Court enquired both the parties and is satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. In view of the above, no useful purpose would be achieved by keeping the above case pending ... Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in this case, even though the offences involved are not compoundable in nature."

Facts of the case

In the instant case, a 2018 complaint had been filed by K. Arulmani, a technical staff in the Metro Transport Corporation, Perambur alleging that he had been approached by Rajkumar (the fourth accused) in 2014 when a notification for the recruitment of driver and conductor in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation had been issued.

Rajkumar had allegedly informed Arulmani that such jobs could be secured in lieu of money. He had also claimed to know Senthil Balaji (then Transport Minister) and his brother Ashok. Rajkumar. On the basis of this assurance, Arulmani had proceeded to collect nearly Rs 40 lakhs from various persons. However, the names of the persons who had paid the amount had not been subsequently reflected in the recruitment list published.

As a result, Arulmani had approached Rajkumar seeking repayment of the money. Although two cheques to the tune of Rs 15 lakhs had been given, Arulmani later claimed that the cheques could not be uncashed due to insufficient balance. Thereafter, Arulmani was allegedly threatened against pressuring for repayment of the money, the complaint said.

Arulmani also alleged that he had taken four years to lodge the complaint because the accused was a State Minister and a Member of the Legislative Assembly. After the FIR was lodged in August 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)., a charge sheet had been filed in 2019.

The trial in the instant case was pending before the Additional Special Court for trial of cases related to Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.

It was also claimed that the petitioner was actually running a manpower agency and that the money was collected towards consultation charges for securing jobs if the applicants fulfil required eligibility. However, they were not eligible and hence they could not get the jobs. Furthermore, it was alleged that although the money had been repaid in 2019 and all 13 alleged victims were not interested in prosecuting the case, the police went ahead and filed a charge sheet due to political reasons.

Contention of the Parties

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/A3 submitted that the petitioner was running a man power agency, DTP Centre and he used to collect consultancy charges and give positive hopes of securing job based on his position. The learned counsel further submitted that during the year 2014, a notification was issued by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation for recruitment of Driver and Conductor. The 2nd

respondent collected the consultation charges from the prospective candidates and informed them there is bright chances of securing job, if they fulfill eligibility criteria. Since the candidates/victims could not get appointment order, the dispute aroused between the 2nd respondent and the candidates/victims who gave money to him. The petitioner had only received consultancy charges and nothing more.

In this case, now the victims (LW2 to LW14) have filed individual affidavit and the petitioner filed the joint compromise memo confirming the compromise and seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.25 of 2021. Hence, he prays for quashing of the proceedings.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the 1st respondent Police submitted that on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, a case in of 2018 came to be registered. During investigation, it was found that the witnesses (LW2 to LW14) gave huge sums of money between Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.5 lakhs, totally Rs.40 lakhs for getting appointment as Driver and Conductor in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. The victims hail from poor family and with great difficulty, the amount was mobilized by selling lands and pledging jewels for the promise of securing job in a public section undertaking. The accused gave assurance to get job and thereafter, cheated and misappropriated the amount of the victims. Further, the victims not only lost their job, but also lost their money.

The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 2014 and after five years, it is now represented that both the 2nd respondent and the victims arrayed at compromise during 2019. The compromise took place after completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet before the trial Court. The compromise entered between the accused and the victims in the year 2019 and the 1st respondent is not aware about the same.

Courts Observation and Judgment

The bench noted that the alleged victims had deposed that they had been given the money owed to them and that they were not aware about events thereafter. Thus, the victims had no objection to the quashing of the case owing to the settlement. On the other hand, the counsel for the government contended that the State police was not aware of the 2019 compromise between the accused and the victims.

The court termed the allegations to be 'general and vague' owing to the non production of the appointment orders and other documents in respect of the alleged transaction, quashed the proceedings.

The bench quashing the proceedings remarked, "In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641 (Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), and after exercising due caution as advised by the Hon'ble Suprme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashes the proceedings in C.C.No.25 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Special Court for Trial of Cases related to Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai."

Read Judgment ;

 

SOURCE ;  .latestlaws.com

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure