Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ. and G. Arul Murugan, J.
K. Athinarayanan and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
State Rep by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home and Ors. – Respondents
WP(MD) No. 34197 of 2025 and W.P. Crl. No.74 of 2026
Decided on 20.2.2026
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 154 [Section 173 of BNSS] – FIR – Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of Code if information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in such a situation – It is in those cases where information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, but indicates necessity for an enquiry, preliminary enquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not – If enquiry discloses commission of a cognizable offence, FIR must be registered – Preliminary enquiry should be made in time-bound and in any case it should not exceed fifteen days generally and, in exceptional cases, by giving adequate reasons, six weeks, and fact of such delay and causes of it must be reflected in General Diary Entry – Holding of preliminary enquiry even in case of corruption is not a sine qua non – Even in cases of allegations of corruption, if there is a credible source information containing material evidence and not merely a bald allegation, there is no need for a preliminary enquiry, but registration of offence must follow without verifying credibility or worthiness of incriminating evidence. (Paras 24.6 and 34)
(B) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 66(2) – Sharing of information – Not only Director and other specified authority of Enforcement Directorate is mandated to share information, but also that, on receipt of such information, jurisdictional police would be obliged to register case by way of FIR if it is a cognizable offence – Where any information or material has been shared with State police agency by Enforcement Directorate, it has necessarily preceded formation of an opinion that provisions of any law for the time being in force are contravened – Delay in registration of offence in name of preliminary enquiry would not be permissible in those cases where it is information received from statutory investigating agency as provided under Section 66(2) of PMLA, as it is not a case where that information has been given by any other person which may in appropriate case require a preliminary enquiry before registration of offence – Issue involves recruitment of around 2,538 candidates to posts of Assistant Engineers and so on – In cases involving such complications and sensitive issues, State ought to have acted diligently and should have registered case without any delay and conducted detailed investigation – Vigilance Department directed to forthwith register case on information shared by Enforcement Directorate under Section 66(2) of Act and conduct detailed expeditious investigation. (Paras 40, 42, 47, 59, 60 and 61)
Result: W.P.(MD)No.34197 of 2025 dismissed and W.P.(Crl.) No.74 of 2026 disposed of.
ORDER (COMMON)
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ.—W.P.(MD) No.34197 of 2025 has been filed as a public interest litigation, seeking a direction to the third respondent/Director General of Police to take appropriate action based on the communication issued by the second respondent/Enforcement Directorate dated 27.10.2025, if necessary obtain sanction from the first respondent/Government and proceed in accordance with law, following the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1.
2. W.P.(Crl.) No.74 of 2026 is filed seeking to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to register an FIR forthwith based on the petitioner’s representation dated 13.12.2025 and direct a fair, impartial and time-bound investigation.
3. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.34197 of 2025 claims to be a member of the society, which is espousing the voice of general public and fighting against corruption.
4. The petitioner in W.P.(Crl.) No.74 of 2026 is a sitting Member of Parliament in Rajya Sabha and also a practising advocate, who seeks registration of the criminal case in respect of the alleged large-scale recruitment scam.
5. According to the petitioners, a notification was issued by the Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MAWS) Department inviting applications for the recruitment of 2,538 posts in the cadre of Assistant Engineers, Junior Engineers, Town Planning Officers, etc. It is alleged that large-scale illegalities took place in the recruitment and the candidates were selected by obtaining illegal gratification ranging from Rs.25 lakh to Rs.35 lakh per post.
6. It is further stated that in respect of a search conducted by Enforcement Directorate in the residential premises of one Ravichandran, who happens to be the brother of the sitting Minister of the concerned department, in respect of a bank fraud case, the Enforcement Directorate came across several incriminating materials in respect of the illegalities committed in the recruitment to the above posts by adopting devious methods. The search resulted in the seizure of several communications, transactions, predetermined selection lists, call letters, electronic data and digital records from the premises, prima facie, disclosing the existence of a systematic and organised job racket in the recruitment process.
7. It is further stated that the entire scam in the department was systematically carried out through Rs.10/- currency note-based identification method, in which the beneficiaries were identified and using this method, the bribe amounts were collected. The Enforcement Directorate, on seizing the incriminating materials in the search, by letter dated 27.10.2025 addressed to the Director General of Police shared the information under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short “the PMLA”) by enclosing the voluminous records running into 232 pages.
8. It is alleged that more than 150 candidates got illegally recruited through the intervention of Ravichandran and Manivannan, brothers of the sitting Minister, with the connivance of their associates, who are named in the report. It is stated that the State and Director General of Police have not taken timely action on the information shared by Enforcement Directorate, even though the report disclosed commission of cognizable offence. As such, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking registration of the FIR.
9.1. Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (Crl) No.74 of 2026, submitted that since there has been a large-scale recruitment scam involving highranking officials, including the sitting Minister, the petitioner who is a sitting member of Parliament, had come forward with this petition seeking judicial intervention for registration of the case in respect of the disclosed cognizable offence.
9.2. He further submitted that when there is a large-scale illegality in the recruitment to the 2,538 posts, where around Rs.25 la
FIR – Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. if information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in such a situation – Holdin....
The registration of an FIR is obligatory if the information provided indicates a cognizable offence, as preliminary inquiries cannot delay the registration process, particularly in cases involving sy....
Point of Law : Dismissal of petition to Quash of FIR – Commission of cognizable offence and pendency of investigation – cannot be quashed.
The necessity of conducting a preliminary enquiry in cases of alleged corruption involving disproportionate assets, and the requirement of registering an FIR based on existing legal provisions.
Forgery - Quash of FIR - Rights of petitioner - While ensuring and protecting rights of accused and complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and, in any case, it should not exceed....
A preliminary inquiry is not mandatory before registering an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act if a prima facie case exists based on a detailed source information report.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
