Madurai Bench of the High Court Criticises District Judge for Ordering FIR Against Former Thanjavur SP Ashish Rawat*

In a case filed by advocate Karthikeyan from Thanjavur, allegations were made against former Superintendent of Police Ashish Rawat, who served in Thanjavur district. The accusations included cutting teak trees from police quarters for personal use, misappropriation of police welfare association funds, and failure to follow tender procedures in construction works. Based on these allegations, the District Court ordered registration of an FIR.
Challenging this order, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) filed a revision petition. Accepting the arguments of State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, the Madurai Bench of the High Court had earlier granted an interim stay on the order directing registration of the FIR.

The case later came up for final hearing before Justice Pugazhendhi.
Appearing for the State, the Public Prosecutor argued that the District Court had ordered registration of the FIR without following due legal procedures, and that no investigation could be initiated against a public servant without prior government approval.

On the other hand, the senior counsel appearing for Karthikeyan contended that the lower court’s order was valid, arguing that acts such as misappropriation do not fall within the scope of official duty and therefore do not require prior government approval. It was further argued that the DVAC could not legally challenge the order when the concerned SP himself had not done so.

In response, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the case had been ordered to be registered without seeking any explanation from higher authorities, the concerned SP, or the vigilance department, and without adhering to mandatory legal procedures or Supreme Court precedents. He emphasized that any allegation arising in the course of official duty requires prior approval for investigation. He also refuted the claim that only the affected SP could challenge the order, stating that the case had been filed with mala fide intent following the arrest of the advocate.
He further stated:
*“It is the fundamental duty of the government to support the lawful actions of honest officials. Not only police officers, but all public servants acting with integrity in the discharge of their official duties will always have the backing of this government.”*

After hearing both sides, Justice Pugazhendhi observed:

“It is unclear how the District Judge passed such an order. The manner in which the case was handled is also condemnable.”*

The judge reserved the matter for orders, stating that a detailed judgment would be delivered later.