Petition for FIR Against Tamil Nadu CM Vijay Withdrawn from Madras High Court

thelawmonitor
2 Min Read
Petition for FIR Against Tamil Nadu CM Vijay Withdrawn from Madras High Court

Withdrawal of Petition Against Chief Minister Vijay

A petition aimed at initiating legal proceedings under the Income Tax Act and filing a criminal case against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay, citing alleged income suppression and receipt of unaccounted cash, has been officially withdrawn from the Madras High Court. This case, named Rajkumar v. Director General of Income Tax, was brought before a judicial bench consisting of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan. The court was informed that the petitioner, M Rajkumar, had lost interest in pursuing the matter following the conclusion of the elections.

Details of the Petition

Rajkumar’s petition had sought directives for the Income Tax Department to investigate materials stemming from specific search operations, Vijay’s sworn statements, assessment proceedings, and a penalty order. The petitioner sought prosecution under the Income Tax Act, referencing Section 276C, and requested the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) for alleged infractions under the Indian Penal Code, including charges of cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, and criminal conspiracy.

Furthermore, the petitioner urged that evidence be presented to the Enforcement Directorate to assess the potential for an investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Court Proceedings

The case initially faced hurdles as the High Court Registry declined to register the plea citing concerns about its maintainability. However, the bench led by Chief Justice Dharmadhikari had previously issued an order on April 8, allowing the Registry to number the writ petition with the endorsement “numbered subject to maintainability,” directing it to be placed before the roster Bench. The court emphasized that the Registry should not refuse to number a case solely because it might be legally unmaintainable. The bench expressed surprise over the Registry’s continued practice of declining to number petitions on grounds of maintainability, despite earlier circulars discouraging such actions.

Share This Article
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *