N sathis kumar judge 8.Having regard to the findings in the enquiry report, this Court is of the view that allowing the concerned Judicial Officer to serve as a Principal District Judge in the same place will not be good for proper administration

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.Nos.24853 and 24866 of 2025
Crl.O.P.No.24853 of 2025
Lokeshwaran Ravi … Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Inspector of Police
Walajabad Police
Kancheepuram District
(Crime No.283 of 2025)
2. Parvathy … Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. to call for the records in suo mottu order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge for the Trial of Offences under the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Crime No.283 of 2025 and set aside the same as wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sharath Chandran
for Mr.R.Harikrishnan
For R1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Additional Public Prosecutor

Crl.O.P.No.24866 of 2025:
1. The State Represented by
The Superintendent of Police Kancheepuram
2 Deputy Superintendent of Police
Kancheepuram Sub Division Kancheepuram
3. The Inspector of Police
Walajabad Police Station
Kancheepuram … Petitioners
Vs.
Parvathi … Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. to call for the records and to set aside the suo motu order dated 08.09.2025 passed in Crime No.283 of 2025 by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Kancheepuram.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON ORDER
This Court, while disposing of these Criminal Original Petitions, directed the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court, Madras, to conduct an enquiry with regard to the specific allegations made as against the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram, with regard to the motive, bias and misuse of power and conversations between the learned Judge and the Police officials through WhatsApp, and directed the matter to be listed today, i.e., on 23.09.2025 for filing enquiry report.
2.Accordingly, the matter is listed today under the caption “for filing enquiry report”.
3.Pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 09.09.2025, a report has been submitted by the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court, Madras. The Registrar (Vigilance), on examination of 29 witnesses and 14 documents, has rendered her findings. It is stated in the report that, only on the direction of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram, the closed CSR was opened and FIR was lodged and there is no other new circumstance for reopening a closed CSR. The report indicates that the Inspector of Police, Walajabad Police Station, has stated that the parties did not have the intention to proceed with the case and they themselves came forward to close the complaint without any force or undue influence and therefore, the intention of the learned Principal District Judge is clearly disclosed.
4.Further, it is clearly stated in the report that the learned Principal
District Judge wanted to punish Mr.R.Lokeswaran (petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.24853 of 2025) and another PSO namely Mr.M.Manikandan believing that they sent anonymous complaint against him to High Court and this was the base for the learned Judge to instruct the Police authorities to proceed legally against Mr.R.Lokeswaran and Mr.M.Manikandan. Further, the report indicates that the Principal District Judge had clear intention to harass Mr.R.Lokeswaran.
5.It is further stated in the enquiry report that the procedure followed by the learned Principal District Judge in exercising his discretionary powers seems to be high handed, because the DSP was given pressure to fasten investigation in Crime No.283 of 2025 when he had sufficient time to complete the investigation. It is clearly stated in the report that the learned Principal District Judge acted in motive against natural justice. The freedom of movement was curtailed to DSP since he was retained in the Court campus though he was directed to produce the accused within 3
hours.
6.It is further stated that the learned Judge has directed the Drug Inspector to take action against a medical shop for not selling medicine to him without prescription. It is also stated that the learned Judge has directed the Food Safety Officer to conduct an inspection in the Bakery shop where the incident had happened. It is stated that the learned Judge has directed the Municipality Commissioner to take action against an apartment adjacent to his residence for not allowing to park his personal car in that apartment. Several other incidents have also been narrated in the report to put forth the misuse of inherent power and inhuman activities exhibited by the learned Judge, not only to the PSOs, but also to public who extended their service to him.
7.The allegations raised in the petitions filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. are clearly substantiated by the enquiry report submitted by the Registrar (Vigilance). Therefore, this Court is of the view that the matter has to be placed before the Hon’ble Vigilance Committee of the High Court. Therefore, the Registrar (Vigilance) is directed to place the entire matter before the Hon’ble Vigilance Committee, High Court, Madras, for taking appropriate disciplinary action as against the Judicial Officer on the administrative side.
8.Having regard to the findings in the enquiry report, this Court is of the view that allowing the concerned Judicial Officer to serve as a Principal District Judge in the same place will not be good for proper administration. Therefore, the Registrar General of this Court is directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble Transfer Committee, High Court, Madras, and this Court is prima facie of the view that the concerned Judicial Officer has to be transferred immediately and he may not be posted as Principal District Judge, pending disciplinary proceedings. The Committee may take further action in this regard based on the entire materials collected by the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court, Madras.
9.With these directions, the matter stands closed.
23.09.2025
ksa-2/mkn
Internet : Yes
To
1.The Registrar General, High Court, Madras.
2.The Registrar (Vigilance), High Court, Madras.
3.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Special Court for the Trial of Offences under the
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kancheepuram.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram.
5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Kancheepuram Sub Division, Kancheepuram.
6.The Inspector of Police, Walajabad Police Station, Kancheepuram.
7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J. ksa-2/mkn
Crl.O.P.Nos.24853 and 24866 of 2025
23.09.2025