[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
D.R.Thanu vs The Directorate Of Vigilance And Anti ... on 22 January, 2026
WP.Crl.(MD).No.316/2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 22.01.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE N.MALA
WP.Crl.(MD)No.316 of 2026
D.R.Thanu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
No.293, MKN Road, Alandur,
Chennai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Race Course Road, Kaja Nagar
Trichy District.
3.The Tahsildar
Manachanallur Tahsildar Office
Manachanallur, Trichy District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition [Criminal] filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the 1 st and 2nd respondents to take
action against one Moorthy who is working as Deputy Tahsildar at Manachanallur,
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:49:16 pm )
WP.Crl.(MD).No.316/2026
Trichy, by considering the petitioner's complaint dated 10.10.2025 by allowing the
above writ petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Saravanapandian
For R1, R2 & R3 : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(1)This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct the 1 st and 2nd
respondents to take action against one Moorthy who is working as Deputy
Tahsildar at Manachanallur, Trichy, by considering the petitioner's complaint
dated 10.10.2025.
(2)The petitioner is a practicing Advocate in Trichy District. The petitioner states
that he made a complaint on 10.10.2025, against one Moorthy, S/o.Govindan, who
is at present working as Deputy Tahsildar, Manachanallur, Trichy District, for
misusing his position and receiving bribe from people who applied for corrections
and modifications in the revenue records. Since the respondents did not take any
action, the petitioner was constrained to file the above writ petition for the
aforesaid relief.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:49:16 pm )
(3)The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the writ petition is not
maintainable since the petitioner has an alternate remedy under Section 175(3) of
BNSS, before the jurisdictional Court.
(4)The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in support of the aforesaid submission,
relied on the order passed by this Court in WP.Crl.(MD)No.1925 of 2025 dated
31.10.2025.
(5)Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
(6)The facts are not disputed. This Court, while considering similar issue in WP.Crl.
(MD)No.1925 of 2025, dismissed the petition on 31.10.2025, on the ground of
availability of the alternate remedy. The Court relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of
U.P and others reported in 2015(6) SCC 287. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid judgment held as follows:
“24. Regard being had to the aforesaid enunciation of
law, it needs to be reiterated that the learned Magistrate has to
remain vigilant with regard to the allegations made and the
nature of allegations and not to issue directions without proper
application of mind. He has also to bear in mind that sending
the matter would be conducive to justice and then he may pass
the requisite order. The present is a case where the accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:49:16 pm )
persons are serving in high positions in the bank. We are
absolutely conscious that the position does not matter, for
nobody is above law. But, the learned Magistrate should take
note of the allegations in entirety, the date of incident and
whether any cognizable case is remotely made out. It is also to
be noted that when a borrower of the financial institution
covered under the SARFAESI Act, invokes the jurisdiction under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and also there is a separate procedure
under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial
Institutions Act, 1993, an attitude of more care, caution and
circumspection has to be adhered to.
25. Issuing a direction stating "as per the application" to
lodge an FIR creates a very unhealthy situation in the society
and also reflects the erroneous approach of the learned
Magistrate. It also encourages the unscrupulous and
unprincipled litigants, like the respondent no.3, namely,
Prakash Kumar Bajaj, to take adventurous steps with courts to
bring the financial institutions on their knees. As the factual
exposition would reveal, he had prosecuted the earlier
authorities and after the matter is dealt with by the High Court
in a writ petition recording a settlement, he does not withdraw
the criminal case and waits for some kind of situation where he
can take vengeance as if he is the emperor of all he surveys. It is
interesting to note that during the tenure of the appellant No.1,
who is presently occupying the position of Vice-President,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:49:16 pm )
neither the loan was taken, nor the default was made, nor any
action under the SARFAESI Act was taken. However, the action
under the SARFAESI Act was taken on the second time at the
instance of the present appellant No.1. We are only stating
about the devilish design of the respondent No.3 to harass the
appellants with the sole intent to avoid the payment of loan.
When a citizen avails a loan from a financial institution, it is his
obligation to pay back and not play truant or for that matter
play possum. As we have noticed, he has been able to do such
adventurous acts as he has the embedded conviction that he will
not be taken to task because an application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. is a simple application to the court for issue of a
direction to the investigating agency. We have been apprised
that a carbon copy of a document is filed to show the
compliance of Section 154(3), indicating it has been sent to the
Superintendent of police concerned. 26. At this stage it is seemly
to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of
judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police
taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at
his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A
principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have
free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but
when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellows
citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:49:16 pm )
(7)From the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as rightly
contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is explicit that the
petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy available to him under Section
175(3) of BNSS, before the jurisdictional Court to have his complaint registered.
Since the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section
175(3) of BNSS before the jurisdictional court, this writ petition cannot be
entertained.
(8)In fine, this writ petition is dismissed. Needless to say, the petitioner is at liberty
to invoke Section 175[3] of BNSS, if so advised. No costs.
22.01.2026
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
AP
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:49:16 pm )
To
1.The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
No.293, MKN Road, Alandur,
Chennai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Race Course Road, Kaja Nagar
Trichy District.
3.The Tahsildar
Manachanallur Tahsildar Office
Manachanallur, Trichy District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:49:16 pm )
N.MALA., J.
AP
22.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 04:49:16 pm )
