Madras High Court
Abdullah vs The Director on 3 December, 2025
WP.Crl.(MD)No.2377 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 03.12.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE N.MALA
WP.Crl.(MD)No.2377 of 2025
Abdullah ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Director,
The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC),
Alanthur, Chennai.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Range,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Chennai -16.
3.The Transport Commissioner,
Transport and Road Safety Commissionarate,
Block-9, Adayar Village,
Anna Salai, Guindy,
Chennai.
4.The Regional Transport Authority Cum
District Collector,
Thiruchirapalli District,Trichy.
5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Race Course Road, Kajamalai,
Trichy. ... Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/12/2025 03:16:43 pm )
WP.Crl.(MD)No.2377 of 2025
PRAYER: Writ Petition Criminal is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to conduct a detailed enquiry on the complaint dated
01.08.2025 given by the petitioner which culminated into a proceedings
of the 2nd respondent in petition No.10000/2025/TPT/TR dated
08.08.2025 and consequently take appropriate action in accordance with
law.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ananda Kumar
For R1, R2 & R5 : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R3 & R4 : Mr.F.Deepak
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to conduct a detailed enquiry on the complaint dated 01.08.2025, of the petitioner which culminated into a proceedings of the second respondent in petition dated 08.08.2025, and consequentially to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/12/2025 03:16:43 pm ) WP.Crl.(MD)No.2377 of 2025
2. The petitioner was granted permission on 16.06.2025, for his Mini Bus bearing Registration No.TN-27-2025-SC-0575A, for the route Karumalaipatti to Karaikulam and he was operating his bus from 16.06.2025. While so, one Subbulakshmi, the wife of Durairaj was granted permit to operate her Mini Bus on route from Sukkampatti to Kosipatti without disturbance to the petitioner. Thereafter, Subbulakshmi applied for migration to the route from Puthanatham to Karaikulam via Nallaponnampatti, Ponnusangampatti, Vadakipatti and Karuppur Village on which route the petitioner was operating his Mini Bus.
3.The petitioner therefore submitted an objection on 19.06.2025, to the migration application of Subbulakshmi, to the Road Transport Authority, Trichy. The petitioner states that without considering the petitioner's objection, the Road Transport Authority, Trichy issued migration permit on 20.06.2025, to Subbulakshmi. The petitioner states that the Road Trnasport Authority, Trichy West, acted with malafide intention in granting migration permission to the said Subbulakshmi and for extraneous reasons.
3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/12/2025 03:16:43 pm ) WP.Crl.(MD)No.2377 of 2025
4. The petitioner therefore sent a complaint on 01.08.2025, against the illegal grant of migration permit by the Regional Transport Authority, Trichy, to the respondents 1 and 2, which was received by them on 08.08.2025. Since no action was taken on the petitioner's complaint, the petitioner filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.
5. The learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by the learned Additional Government Pleader, 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.
6. The learned Additional Advocate General, 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.
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/12/2025 03:16:43 pm ) WP.Crl.(MD)No.2377 of 2025
8. The facts are not disputed. The petitioner, aggrieved by the grant of migration permission to one Seethalakshmi on apprehension that the said migration permit was issued with malafide intention for extraneous reasons, submitted a complaint on 01.08.2025, to the respondents 1 and
2. Since no action was taken, the petitioner filed the above writ petition.
9. 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 persons are serving in high positions in the bank. We 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/12/2025 03:16:43 pm ) WP.Crl.(MD)No.2377 of 2025 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-6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/12/2025 03:16:43 pm ) WP.Crl.(MD)No.2377 of 2025 President, 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 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/12/2025 03:16:43 pm ) WP.Crl.(MD)No.2377 of 2025 their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same.”
10. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, if no action is taken on the petitioner's complaint, the petitioner is entitled to invoke Section 175(3) of BNSS, before the jurisdictional court to have his complaint registered. Since the petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 175(3) of BNSS before the jurisdictional court, this writ petition cannot be entertained.
11. In fine, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
03.12.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
CM
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/12/2025 03:16:43 pm )
WP.Crl.(MD)No.2377 of 2025
To,
1.The Director,
The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC), Alanthur, Chennai.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Central Range, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai -16.
3.The Transport Commissioner, Transport and Road Safety Commissionarate, Block-9, Adayar Village, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai.
4.The Regional Transport Authority Cum District Collector, Thiruchirapalli District, Trichy.
5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Race Course Road, Kajamalai, Trichy.
9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/12/2025 03:16:43 pm ) WP.Crl.(MD)No.2377 of 2025 N.MALA., J.
CM WP.Crl.(MD)No.2377 of 2025 03.12.2025 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/12/2025 03:16:43 pm )