Madurai: 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 Ashish Rawat, the then Superintendent of Police (SP) of Thanjavur, based on a complaint filed by an advocate.
Background of the Complaint
Advocate T. S. Karthikeyan had filed a complaint before the Principal Sessions Court, 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 his personal benefit without obtaining prior permission from the government or the forest department. Additionally, the complaint alleged that the SP misappropriated several crores of rupees from the account of the police welfare society and demolished the compound wall of the SP office to construct a meeting hall without any prior approval.
Seeking action, the advocate requested the court to direct the DVAC to register an FIR and conduct an investigation into these allegations.
Sessions Court Order and Challenge
In February 2026, the sessions court forwarded the complaint to the DVAC with a direction to register an FIR against the former SP and file a final report. Challenging this order and the connected proceedings, the DVAC and the state government filed petitions before the High Court.
High Court Observations
Justice B. Pugalendhi, hearing the petitions, 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). The judge noted that a perusal of the sessions court's order revealed that the complaint against an IPS officer was entertained 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 remarked that the sessions judge failed to ensure compliance with these provisions and did not hear the public servant concerned before passing the impugned order. The application was allowed on the very first date of hearing in a mechanical manner.
Verdict
Consequently, Justice 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.
