Further investigation permitted post-charge sheet; PT warrant mandatory for custodial interrogation after arrest; trial court cannot deny post-permission.

ORDER

Challenging the order of rejection of issuance of P.T.Warrant against the accused S.M.Jaibalaji/respondent in Crl.M.P.No.145 of 2026 made by the Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Chennai, dated 25.02.2026, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

2.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner submitted that on the complaint of one Tr.G.Vikram, a case registered by the then Inspector of Police (EOW), Vellore in Crime No.2 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Section 5 of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act 1997 and Sections 420, 406 r/w 120(B) of IPC on 06.05.2019 against A1/M/s.Madhuram Properties Promoters India Limited and 8 others. During the course of investigation, another company M/s.Nalam Realtors and 7 others additionally added, charge sheet filed against A1 to A17 on 10.11.2025 for defaulted to the tune of Rs.1,67,52,310/- to 550 depositors, taken on file in C.C.No.35 of 2025 on 11.11.2025.

3.It is submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the Investigating Officer found that the respondent, a close relative of K.Namachivayan/A7, involved in transfer of funds, purchase of properties, diversion, concealment of properties purchased from the amounts of depositors. The respondent carrying on real estate business in the name of Marutham Land Promoters at Madurai had entered into a memorandum of understanding dated 01.04.2013 to purchase the properties out of the deposited amount received from A1, materials received and the role of the respondent was confirmed. It is submitted that arraying the respondent as an accused is imperative for the purpose of attaching the properties to realise the defrauded amounts and repaying the depositors and the provisions of TNPID Act invoked. Further, he would submit that the Police has filed a petition Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C before the trial Court on 24.02.2026 and the trial Court vide order dated 24.02.2026 had permitted further investigation.

4.He further submitted that intimation/information is sufficient and prior permission is not mandatory, and the Investigating Officer can conduct further investigation, if any material emerges. Hence, he submitted that the further investigation has commenced.

5.It is also submitted that the respondent is an accused in Crime No.64 of 2025 registered and investigated by CCB Madurai and is presently in judicial custody. In order to avoid loss of time and to prevent the accused from absconding, he was shown as an accused in this case on 23.02.2026 and PT warrant was sought on 24.02.2026. However, the trial Court finding that without prior permission, making formal arrest of the respondent in Crime No.2 of 2019 is not proper, refused to issue the PT warrant. Challenging the same, the present petition.

6.Further, he submitted that now the Special Court, by order dated 25.02.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.146 of 2026 permitted the Inspector of Police, EOW, Chennai to conduct further investigation in C.C.No.35 of 2005. It is submitted that the custodial interrogation of the respondent is required and after the arrest, the details of the properties to be collected to find out diversification and concealment by the respondent and others and now the respondent is still in prison.

7.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

8.Considering the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the petitioner and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the Investigating Agency received some materials disclosing the involvement of the resp