BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 18.11.2025

Delivered on : 03.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

CRL.A(MD).No. 986 of 2025

in

Crl.M.P(MDNo.12964 of 2025

P.Parthiban,

S/o.S.P.Panneerselvam,

Former Inspector of Police,

Central Crime Branch, Madurai. : Appellant

Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu rep.by

The Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Central Crime Branch, Madurai.

2.S.Ramya : Respondents

Prayer : This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (PoA) Act 1989, to call for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR) (FAC) Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.125 of 2025, vide order, dated 02.08.2025 and set

aside the same.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Anand, For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

for R1.

: No Appearance, for R2.

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order made in Crl.M.P.No.125 of 2025, dated 02.08.2025 on the file of the II nd Additional District Court (PCR) Cases, Madurai.

2.The second respondent filed a private complaint under Section 223 of BNSS, against the appellant/Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madurai and against Tmt.Annalakshmi, Sub Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madurai, alleging that they have neglected to conduct proper investigation into the complaint given by the defacto complainant and acted in favour of the other side, as the complainant belongs to Schedule Caste Community.

3.The learned Sessions Judge, upon receiving the private complaint under Section 223 of BNSS, passed the impugned order, dated 02.08.2025 and is extracted hereunder for better appreciation :

“Sworn Statement of complainant and Documents P1 to P4 perused. Affidavit also filed. On perusal of complaint and the documents, prima facie case made for the alleged offences mentioned in the complaint. Hence, it is forwarded to DSP CCB, Madurai to register the FIR and investigate the matter and file the final report before this court.”

Challenging the impugned order, the present appeal came to be filed.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant attacked the impugned order on the four grounds namely, a) The learned Sessions, Judge without calling for and considering the submissions made by the concerned police, failed to comply with the requirement under Section 175(3) of BNSS;

b) that the appellant being a public servant and allegations were levelled arising in the course of discharge of his duties, the learned Sessions Judge should have received a report from the officer Superior to the appellant;

c) that the learned Sessions Judge failed to hear the proposed accused including the appellant and that therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has violated the mandatory requirements contemplated under Section 175(4) of BNSS;

d) that the learned Sessions Judge, after recording that a prima facie case made out for the offences shown in the complaint, should not have forwarded the complaint to the DSP/CCB for registering FIR and for investigation and that since none of the ingredients for making out the offence under the provisions of SC/ST (PoA) Act are found available for the private complaint, the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have directed the first respondent to register the FIR against the appellant.

5. During arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant raised another ground that since there has been no recommendation on the administrative side for a positive finding with regard to the negligence as required under Section 4(2) of SC/ST (PoA)Act, the impugned order is unsustainable.

6. It is pertinent to note that the learned Sessions Judge, upon receipt of the private complaint filed under Section 223 of BNSS, (200 Cr.P.C) proceeded to record the sworn statement of the complainant and marked the documents produced by the complainant and upon perusing the complaint, affidavit, sworn statement and the documents (P 1 to P 4), the learned Sessions Judge has recorded his satisfaction tha