THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Crl.RC(MD)No.359 of 2026, Crl.OP(MD)No.4122 of 2026 and Crl.MP(MD)Nos.4368, 4448 of 2026 Crl.RC(MD)No.359 of 2026:- 1.The Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, No.293, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai – 16. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Thanjavur. :

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 24.04.2026
DELIVERED ON : 09.06.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Crl.RC(MD)No.359 of 2026,
Crl.OP(MD)No.4122 of 2026 and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.4368, 4448 of 2026
Crl.RC(MD)No.359 of 2026:-
1.The Director,
Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
No.293, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai – 16.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Thanjavur. : Petitioners
Vs.
1.T.S.Karthikeyan
2.Ashish Rawat : Respondents Crl.OP(MD)No.4122 of 2026:-
State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Superintendent of Police,
Thanjavur District, Thanjavur. : Petitioner
Vs.
1.T.S.Karthikeyan
2.The Director,
Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
No.293, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai – 16.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Thanjavur.
4.Ashish Rawat : Respondents
PRAYER in Crl.RC(MD)No.359 of 2026: Petition filed under Section 438 r/s 442 BNSS to call for the records relating to the order passed in
Crl.MP.No.1005 of 2026 dated 19.02.2026 on the file of the Principal
Sessions Court, Thanjavur and quash the same.
PRAYER in Crl.OP(MD)No.4122 of 2026: Petition filed under Section
528 BNSS to call for the records relating to the proceedings in
Crl.MP.No.1009 of 2026 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court,
Thanjavur and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Hassan Mohammed Jinnah,
State Public Prosecutor
Assisted by
Mr.T.Senthil Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondents: Mr.K.Bala Sundaram,
Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Jayakumar for R.1
[In both petitions]
*****
COMMON ORDER
For convenience and clarity, the parties are referred to as per their rank in Crl.RC(MD)No.359 of 2026.
2.The first respondent, an Advocate, has filed a complaint as against the second respondent / then Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur, before the learned Principal Sessions Court, Thanjavur, in
Crl.MP.No.1005 of 2026 under Section 175(3) of the BNSS [156(3) Cr.PC] seeking a direction to the Vigilance Department to register an FIR and investigate his complaint. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, by order dated 19.02.2026, forwarded the complaint of the first respondent under Section 175(3) of the BNSS to the Vigilance Department with a direction to register the FIR as against the second respondent and to file a final report. This order dated 19.02.2026 is challenged by the Vigilance Department in Crl.RC(MD)No.359 of 2026.
3.Mr.Hassan Mohammed Jinnah, learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the Vigilance Department submitted that the learned Principal Sessions Judge, without complying with the statutory safeguards available to a public servant, has issued the direction to the Vigilance Department to register FIR and that too, based on a complaint of the first respondent, who has filed the complaint with an ulterior motive. According to him, the first respondent is a leader of a political organisation, having several criminal cases to his account and he has submitted a complaint against the then Superintendent of Police in order to wreck vengeance for having taken action as against him.
4.He further submitted that the second respondent / then
Superintendent of Police is a public servant and Section 175(4) of the BNSS provide protection to public servants from false and vexatious complaints. As per this provision, the Magistrate is required to receive a report containing the facts and circumstances of the event from a superior officer of the public servant involved and also hear the public servant involved before directing investigation. He further submitted that as per Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, no police officer can conduct any enquiry, or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, where such act relates to any recommendation or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official duties, without the prior approval of the competent authority.
5.According to the learned State Public Prosecutor, the allegations against the second respondent relate to his official duties and decisions taken during his tenure as Superintendent of Police. Hence, prior approval from the competent authority under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a mandatory requisite before passing any direction for registration of an FIR, which was not obtained in the present case. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge directing the registration of FIR without complying with the safeguards available to a public servant is illegal and liable to be set aside.
6.The learned State Public Prosecutor has also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in XXX v. State of Kerala and Others [2026 INSC 88] and submitted that compliance with the statutory safeguards under Section 175(4) BNSS is mandatory before directing any investigation against a public servant and that these safeguards are intended to prevent frivolous, vexatious or malafide complaints against any public servants. He has also relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Arun P.Gidh v. Chandraprakash Singh and Others [2024
(2) MLJ (Cri.) 279] in support of his contentions.
7.On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the order impugned in this revision is a direction issued by the learned Principal Sessions Judge to the Vigilance Department to register a FIR and investigate the complaint of a cognizable nature. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the second respondent / then Superintendent of Police of Thanjavur District had misused his official position, has cut and removed teak trees worth of several crores for his personal benefit without having obtained any prior permission from the Government or the Forest Department. He submitted that a marriage hall was maintained by the police welfare society and the rental income of the marriage hall were deposited in a separate account opened in the name of the society. However, the second respondent has misappropriated several crores of rupees from the said account of the police welfare society. Further, the second respondent also demolished the compound wall in the office of the Superintendent of Police and constructed a meeting hall without obtaining any prior approval from the Government and several false and fabricated accounts were created during the construction of the meeting hall. The second respondent also used the police personnel from Armed Reserve as labourers and used government vehicles in an illegal manner for transporting construction materials for the said work. He also established a park and artificial ornamental fountains opposite to the office of the Superintendent of Police without following the prescribed guidelines.
8.With these averments, the first respondent has lodged a complaint in person before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Thanjavur, on 02.02.2026 and the complaint was also sent by post to the Vigilance Department, which was received by them on 08.02.2026. However, they have not taken any action on the same and therefore, the first respondent has filed an application before the learned Principal Sessions Judge under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. Therefore, the learned Principal Sessions Judge is right in issuing the direction.
9.He further submitted that this revision case has been filed by the
State by stepping into the shoes of the accused / second respondent. The State is the custodian of criminal law and therefore, the State cannot be an aggrieved party to question a direction issued as against an accused. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the complaint discloses cognizable offence and therefore, the Vigilance Department is bound to register the FIR as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2014 (2) SCC 1]. He also submitted that if the complaint discloses the commission of cognizable offence, then preliminary enquiry is not required and only in certain categories of cases, preliminary enquiry is permitted.
10.Insofar as the criminal cases referred by the learned State Public
Prosecutor as against the first respondent is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel clarified that all these cases are registered as against him since he agitated for the welfare of the suppressed community. He further submitted that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 is not applicable to this nature of complaint, as the allegations mentioned in the complaint are not related to the discharge of official duties.
11.Apart from this revision case, another criminal original petition has been filed by the State, represented by the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur, in Crl.OP(MD)No.4122 of 2026 under Section 528 of the BNSS challenging the proceedings before the learned Principal Sessions Judge in Crl.MP.No.1009 of 2026.
12.The said proceedings arose out of an application filled by the first respondent under Section 347 of the BNSS [Section 310 Cr.PC] to constitute a committee headed by a Magistrate, including Advocates, Forest Department Officials as members and to delegate the powers to inspect the scene of occurrence to the committee. It is the vehement contention of the learned State Public Prosecutor that the Court does not have the power to constitute such a committee and the same is beyond the scope of an application under Section 347 of the BNSS. Since the learned Principal Sessions Judge has issued notice to the Vigilance Department and to the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur, in the above proceedings, the said proceedings was challenged by way of the criminal original petition.
13.The objections of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent is that this original petition has been filed prematurely by the State and that the Magistrate has only issued notice and there is no necessity to interfere at this stage.
14.Heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the materials placed on record.
15.Since the issue involved in both the applications are interconnected, they are taken up together and disposed by way of this common order.
16.The first respondent claims to be a practising Advocate in Thanjavur District and also the State General Secretary of a registered political party. Admittedly, he is having the following cases to his credit:
S.No Police Station Crime Number Offences involved
1. Pandhanallur Crime No.173 of 2011 Sections 109, 147, 148, 323, 324, 448, 307 IPC, Section 3(1) TNPPDL Act
2. Pandhanallur Crime No.139 of 2017 Sections 143, 504, 505(1)(b) IPC
3. Thookkanampakka m Crime No.36 of 2010 Sections 395, 120(b), 109 IPC
4. Pandhanallur Crime No.219 of 2012 Sections 147, 148, 447, 506(ii), 109 IPC, Section 12 of TNPPDL Act
5. Kanchipuram Taluk Crime No.892 of 2014 Section 394 IPC
6. Ammapettai Crime No.56 of 2018 Section 148, 188, 341 IPC
7. Thanjavur Tamil University Crime No.159 of 2019 Sections 147, 153(A), 504, 505(1)(a),
353, 506(i) IPC
8. Thiruppanandal Crime No.163 of 1998 Section 302 IPC
9. Pandhanallur Crime No.245 of 2008 Sections 153, 153(A) IPC
10. Thiruppanandal Crime No.249 of 2009 Sections 147, 341, 188 IPC
11. Cuddalore New Town Crime No.39 of 2011 Sections 143, 154, 188 IPC
12. Thiruppanandal Crime No.40 of 2012 Sections 294(b), 323, 506(ii) IPC
13. Thanjavur West Crime No.119 of 2012 Sections 294(b), 506(i), 353 IPC
14. Thiruppanandal Crime No.498 of 2023 Sections 147, 379, 148, 120(b), 506(ii), 504, 505(1)(b), 109 IPC r/w Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act
17.The first respondent filed a complaint as against the second respondent / then Superintendent of Police of Thanjavur District, who served there between 2023 and 2025, that he misused his official position, cut and removed teak trees worth several crore rupees for his personal benefit without obtaining prior permission from the Government or the Forest Department. It appears that a Police Welfare Association was formed in Thanjavur District and this welfare association has constructed a marriage hall for the welfare of the police officers. It is alleged that the second respondent misappropriated several crores of rupees from the account of the police welfare society; that he demolished the compound wall of the premises of the office of the Superintendent of Police and constructed a meeting hall without following the established procedure. It is also alleged that the second respondent used police personnel from Armed Reserve as labourers and used government vehicles in an illegal manner for transporting construction materials for the said work. Further, he established a park and artificial ornamental fountains opposite to the office of the
Superintendent of Police without following the prescribed guidelines.
18.With the above allegations, the complaint was filed by the first respondent / complainant that the second respondent has committed offences under Sections 61(2), 198, 201, 303, 316(5), 324(5) of the BNS; Sections 7, 8, 11, 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
1988; Sections 21(e), 41, 49(a) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act 1882; Sections 9,
10, 16 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act 1998; and Sections 49, 56, 57 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971. This complaint appears to have been sent to the Vigilance Department by post on 02.02.2026 and subsequently, the complaint was filed before the learned Principal Sessions Judge on 18.02.2026 under Section 175(3) of the BNSS [156(3) CrPC]. The same was entertained by the learned Principal Sessions Judge on the very next day by issuing a direction to the Vigilance Department to register a FIR, conduct investigation on the complaint and file a final report.
19.The complaint was filed by the first respondent under Section
175(3) of the BNSS and the same is extracted hereunder ready reference:“Section 175(3)- Any Magistrate empowered under section 210 may, after considering the application supported by an affidavit made under sub-section (4) of section 173, and after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary and submission made in this regard by the police officer, order such an investigation as above-mentioned.”
A perusal of the above provision reveals that the Court is required to make such enquiry as it deems necessary and also consider the submission made by the concerned police officer regarding the
complaint before directing investigation.
20.Further, Section 175(4) of the BNSS provides an additional layer of protection to public servants in order to protect them from malicious prosecution and the provision is extracted as under:-
“Section 175(4)- Any Magistrate empowered under section 210, may, upon receiving a complaint against a public servant arising in course of the discharge of his official duties, order investigation, subject to-
(a) receiving a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to him; and
(b) after consideration of the assertions made by the publicservant as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged.”
21.Therefore, the Court is also required to receive a report containing the facts and circumstances of the incident from an officer superior to the concerned public servant and also hear the the public servant concerned before directing investigation, when a complaint is made against a public servant arising out of the discharge of official duties. This requirement was not present under the CrPC, but was introduced under the BNSS. In Om Prakash Ambedkar vs. State of Maharashtra and others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 238], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has also noted the same and held as under:
“31. Section 175 BNSS corresponds to Section 156CrPC. Sub-section (1) of Section 175 BNSS is in pari materia with Section 156(1)CrPC except for the proviso which empowers the Superintendent of Police to direct the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate a case if the nature or gravity of the case so requires. Sub-section (2) of Section 175 BNSS is identical to Section 156(2)CrPC. Section 175(3) BNSS empowers any Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance under Section 210 to order investigation in accordance with Section 175(1) and to this extent is in pari materia with Section 156(3)CrPC.
32. However, unlike Section 156(3)CrPC, any Magistrate, before ordering investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS, is required to:
(a) Consider the application, supported by an affidavit, made by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police under
Section 173(4) BNSS;
(b) Conduct such inquiry as he thinks necessary; and
(c) Consider the submissions made by the police officer.
33. Sub-section (4) of Section 175 BNSS is a new addition to the scheme of investigation of cognizable cases when compared with the scheme previously existing in Section 156CrPC. It provides an additional safeguard to a public servant against whom an accusation of committing a cognizable offence arising in the course of discharge of his official duty is made. The provision stipulates that any Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance under Section 210 BNSS may order investigation against a public servant upon receiving a complaint arising in course of the discharge of his official duty, only after complying with the following procedure:
(a) Receiving a report containing facts and circumstances
of the incident from the officer superior to the accused public servant; and
(b) Considering the assertions made by the accused public servant as regards the situation that led to the occurrence of the alleged incident.
34. A comparison of Section 175(3) BNSS with Section 156(3)CrPC indicates three prominent changes that have been introduced by the enactment of BNSS as follows:
(a) First, the requirement of making an application to the Superintendent of Police upon refusal by the officer in charge of a police station to lodge the FIR has been made mandatory, and the applicant making an application under Section 175(3) is required to furnish a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, while making the application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3).
(b) Secondly, the Magistrate has been empowered to conduct such enquiry as he deems necessary before making an order directing registration of FIR.
(c) Thirdly, the Magistrate is required to consider the submissions of the officer in charge of the police station as regards the refusal to register an FIR before issuing any directions under Section 175(3).”
22.Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed in Om Prakash Ambedkar's case (supra) that by requiring the Court to consider the submissions of the police officer concerned before issuing directions, the provision ensures that there is proper application of mind by the
Court. The relevant portion is usefully extracted hereunder:-
“40. Further, by requiring the Magistrate to consider the submissions made by the police officer concerned before proceeding to issue directions under Section 175(3) BNSS has affixed greater accountability on the police officer responsible for registering FIRs under Section 173. Mandating the Magistrate to consider the submissions of the police officer concerned also ensures that the Magistrate applies his mind judicially while considering both the complaint and the submissions of the police officer thereby ensuring that the requirement of passing reasoned orders is complied with in a more effective and comprehensive manner.”
23.In the present case, the allegation as against the second respondent is that the officer has put up some construction without approval and without following the tender process. Even according to the first respondent / complainant, the marriage hall is maintained by the Police Welfare Association for the welfare of the police officers. It appears that some development activities have been made by this welfare association by putting up some construction. It also appears that the first respondent has not verified whether any approval has been obtained prior to the construction or permission has been obtained from the authority concerned for constructing the building.
24.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the relevant files before this Court which discloses that such building has been constructed with the association fund, which accumulated from the income of the marriage hall. Necessary permissions have been obtained from the building authorities and also from the Association. The Association has passed a resolution for constructing this meeting hall and it has been inaugurated by the Director General of Police.
25.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also produced the bank transaction details of the Association along with the Auditor's report showing that the entire transaction has been made only through the bank. Without even ascertaining the same, the first respondent has made a vague complaint.
26.Since allegations were made against the second respondent that he had committed offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, the protections provided to public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, also has to be considered in this case. Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, provides that no enquiry or inquiry or investigation shall be conducted into any complaint related to the decision taken by a public servant in discharge of their official duty without prior approval of the authority concerned. The provision is extracted as under:
“Section 17A: Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties-
No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval--
(a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed:
Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person:
Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month.”
27.Similarly, certain procedures have been contemplated for investigating the complaint of corruption by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption in the Vigilance Manual, 1983. It provides protection to any cadre of officers of All India Service that prior permission has to be obtained from the the Government before conducting preliminary enquiry. Part IV of the Vigilance Manual dealing with the same is extracted hereunder:
“15. Authority for taking up Enquiries/ Investigations:
(1)(vii)- In respect of Members of All-India Services, District
Collectors, Heads of Departments and Managing Directors / Chief
Executives of Statutory Bodies, Corporations and State owned
Companies, the following procedure will be followed -
(a) the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption shall not start a Preliminary Enquiry, unless specifically authorised by the
Government, in consultation with the Vigilance Commissioner;”
28.It is a settled law that the Court cannot direct the registration of FIR and investigation in a mechanical manner under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. However, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that this complaint as against an IPS Officer has been entertained by the learned Sessions Judge in a casual manner under Section 175(3) of BNSS without even ascertaining the materials, if any, relied on by the complainant in his complaint. Further, the statute also provides protection to the public servants under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 175(4) of the BNSS. Without ensuring compliance with any of the above provisions and hearing the public servant concerned, the learned Principal Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner and allowed the application on the very first date of hearing. Therefore, this Court is inclined to entertain the criminal revision petition and set aside the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge in Crl.MP.No.1005 of 2026.
29.Insofar as Crl.OP(MD)No.4122 of 2026 challenging the proceedings before the learned Principal Sessions Judge in Crl.MP.No. 1009 of 2026 is concerned, the same was filed to constitute a committee and delegate the powers to inspect the place of occurrence to the committee. The application was made under Section 347 BNSS [Section
310 Cr.PC] and the provision is extracted as under:
“Section 347: Local inspection- (1) Any Judge or Magistrate may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding, after due notice to the parties, visit and inspect any place in which an offence is alleged to have been committed, or any other place which it is in his opinion necessary to view for the purpose of properly appreciating the evidence given at such inquiry or trial, and shall without unnecessary delay record a memorandum of any relevant facts observed at such inspection.
(2) Such memorandum shall form part of the record of the case and if the prosecutor, complainant or accused or any other party to the case, so desires, a copy of the memorandum shall be furnished to him free of cost.”
30.The above provision empowers the Magistrate to visit and inspect any place in which an offence is alleged to have been committed or inspect any other place for the purpose of properly appreciating the evidence already given at an inquiry or trial. Hence, it is the Magistrate concerned who has to undertake such local inspection and the provision does not allow the Court to appoint a committee for conducting a local inspection. It would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Kerala High Court in Soman v. Ramanan [2014 SCC Online Ker 12114], wherein it was held that a commission cannot be appointed under this provision and such an application cannot be filed at the pre-cognizance stage. The relevant portion is extracted as under:
“2. ... The only provision enabling local inspection is Section 310 Cr.P.C, under which Commission cannot at all be appointed. Even under Section 310 Cr.P.C any Judge or Magistrate proceeding with inquiry or trial in any judicial proceeding can make a visit to the place of incident, only in extreme circumstances where such local inspection by a Judge is absolutely necessary for proper appreciation of evidence and for a just decision. Such a course cannot at all be resorted to at the pre-cognizance stage. If the complainant wants to prove anything at the pre-cognizance stage for bringing out a prima facie case to proceed, he will have to do it on his own, and the court cannot help him by resorting to the procedure under Section 310 Cr.P.C.”
31.In light of the above discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings in Crl.MP.No.1009 of 2026 pending before learned Principal Sessions Judge is liable to be quashed and this Court is inclined to allow the criminal original petition.
In fine,
(i)Crl.RC(MD)No.359 of 2026 is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, in Crl.MP.No.1005 of 2026 dated 19.02.2026 is set aside.
(ii) Crl.OP(MD)No.4122 of 2026 is allowed and the proceedings before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, in Crl.MP.No.
1009 of 2026 is quashed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Internet : Yes 09.06.2026
gk
To
1.The Director,
Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
No.293, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai – 16.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Thanjavur.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.
B.PUGALENDHI, J. gk
Crl.RC(MD)No.359 of 2026,
Crl.OP(MD)No.4122 of 2026
09.06.2026