The Madras High Court has set aside an order passed by the Thanjavur Principal Sessions Court that directed the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to register a First Information Report (FIR) against the then Superintendent of Police of Thanjavur, Ashish Rawat, based on a complaint filed by an advocate.
Background of the Case
Advocate T S Karthikeyan filed a complaint before the Principal Sessions Court in Thanjavur, alleging that Rawat had misused his official position. The advocate claimed that Rawat had cut and removed teak trees worth several crores of rupees for personal benefit without obtaining prior permission from the government or the forest department. Additionally, it was alleged that the Superintendent of Police misappropriated several crores of rupees from the account of the police welfare society. The complaint also accused Rawat of demolishing the compound wall of the SP office and constructing a meeting hall without proper authorization. Seeking action, the advocate requested a direction to the DVAC to register an FIR and investigate the matter.
Sessions Court Order
In February 2026, the Principal Sessions Court forwarded the complaint to the DVAC with a directive to register an FIR against the former SP and submit a final report. Challenging this order and the connected proceedings, both the DVAC and the state government filed petitions before the Madras High Court.
High Court's Observations
Justice B Pugalendhi, presiding over the case, observed that it is a settled principle of law that a court cannot direct the registration of an FIR and investigation in a mechanical manner under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Upon reviewing the order, the judge noted that the complaint against an IPS officer had been entertained by the sessions judge in a casual manner under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, without even ascertaining the materials relied upon by the complainant.
Furthermore, the statute provides protection to public servants under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 175(4) of the BNSS. The judge pointed out that without ensuring compliance with these provisions and without hearing the public servant concerned, the sessions judge had passed the impugned order mechanically. The application was allowed on the very first date of hearing, which the High Court found to be improper.
Final Decision
Consequently, Justice B Pugalendhi set aside the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge. The High Court also quashed the connected proceeding that had constituted a committee and delegated powers to inspect the place of occurrence. The ruling underscores the importance of following due process and adhering to legal protections for public servants.
