Dismissed¶46

G.Mathivanan v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC11 Nov 2025CRL OP/22957/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quash petition under Section 528 BNSS 2023 dismissed; FIR Crime No.04/AC/2022, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Dharmapuri; offences under Sections 120(B), 406, 409, 109 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) r/w 12 Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (as amended upto 2018); LED Mini High Mass Lights work orders, Pappireddipatti Panchayat Union BDOs; Sky Traders; super check by Executive Engineer; alleged excess Rs.10,98,162/-; charge sheet in C.C.No.43 of 2025 before Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri; factual disputes to be decided at trial; liberty to raise all points during trial; Tamil Nadu Panchayats Rules 2007 and G.O.(Ms.) No.203 dated 20.12.2007 referred.

What did the court decide?

No relief; quash petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all points during trial; connected Crl.M.P.No.15686 of 2025 closed.

G.Mathivanan Vs The Inspector of Police — Corruption | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief; quash petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all points during trial; connected Crl.M.P.No.15686 of 2025 closed.

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Information Report in Crime No.04/AC/2022 on the file of the respondent should be quashed as against the petitioner/A4 under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed; the Court's observations are confined to the limited purpose of deciding the petition, and the petitioner is at liberty to raise all points during trial; the connected Crl.M.P.No.15686 of 2025 is closed.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The Court declined to entertain the quash petition: investigation is complete, the charge sheet has been filed and is pending trial, and the points raised by the petitioner are factual in nature, to be decided during trial.

¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Nirmal Kumar, J.) dismissed a quash petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 filed by G. Mathivanan (shown as Petitioner/A4 in the cause title; described by the prosecution as now arrayed as A3) seeking quashing of FIR Crime No.04/AC/2022 of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dharmapuri, registered for offences under Sections 120(B), 406, 409 and 109 IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) r/w 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended upto 2018). The case arose from six work orders (total Rs.15,00,000/-) issued by Block Development Officers of Pappireddipatti Panchayat Union to the petitioner's firm Sky Traders for installation of LED Mini High Mass Lights; the petitioner was paid Rs.13,42,500/- against bills Nos.1053 to 1058, and a super check by the Executive Engineer allegedly revealed an excess of Rs.10,98,162/- across six sites, in conspiracy and abetment with the public servants/BDOs. With investigation complete and the charge sheet taken on file in C.C.No.43 of 2025 pending trial before the Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri (17 witnesses and 36 documents annexed; summons issued for appearance on 19.11.2025), the Court held that the points raised by the petitioner were factual in nature and to be decided during trial, declined to entertain the petition and dismissed it, confining its observations to the limited purpose of deciding the petition and leaving the petitioner free to raise all points at trial; the connected Crl.M.P.No.15686 of 2025 was closed.

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.22957 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.11.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.22957 of 2025 and

¶7

Crl.M.P.No.15686 of 2025

¶8

G.Mathivanan ... Petitioner/A4

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dharmapuri.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, praying to call for the records relating to the First Information Report in Crime No.04/AC/2022 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as against this petitioner.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Palanivel

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner/A4 in Crime No.4 of 2022 for offence under Section 120(B), 406, 409 and 109 of I.P.C. and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of

¶17

Page No.1 of 8

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.22957 of 2025

¶20

Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) r/w 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (as amended upto 2018) had filed the above quash petition.

¶21

2.The case against the petitioner as per the F.I.R. is that there are totally 5 accused in this case. A1 to A3 are the Block Development Officers (BDO) of Pappireddipatti Panchayat Union. A4 is the Proprietor of Sky Traders and A5 is the Proprietor of P.Kumar Electricals and Hardwares and they are private individuals. During their tenure, work order was allotted by the Block Development Officers, Pappireddipatti Panchayat Union for installation of LED Mini High Mass Lights with poles and other accessories in 6 places. The Block Development Officers in conspiracy and abetment with the private individuals including the petitioner had accorded administration sanction to the work. As regards this petitioner, he was allotted 6 work orders each for Rs.2,50,000/-, in total, Rs.15,00,000/-. During investigation, it was found that without following the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Preparation of Plans and Estimates for works and mode and conditions of contract) Rules 2007 and G.O.(Ms.) No.203, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PR-I) Department, dated 20.12.2007, the work order has been issued. Later during the check conducted on the work, it was found that there

¶22

Page No.2 of 8

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.22957 of 2025

¶25

were huge variation in the execution of the work and material supplied. Hence, F.I.R. registered against them.

¶26

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is running a business in the name of Sky Traders at Salem. He had participated in the tender procedure. The tender application and the petitioner's financial credentials and work credentials in executing the electrical work verified. Thereafter, after getting approval from the concerned authorities, 6 work orders issued in different panchayats in different places, viz., schools, bus stand and in important junctions. This order was issued on 18.09.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner completed the project and received the amount. This being so, five years thereafter, in the year 2022, F.I.R. registered only for the reason that the work was completed by the petitioner during the previous regime and he has been victimised. Hence, filed this quash petition.

¶27

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed his objection and submitted that the petitioner is now arrayed as A3. The petitioner while executing work in 6 places between 07.05.2018 and 23.05.2018 claimed the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- by submitting bill Nos.1053 to 1058 and he was paid a total sum of Rs.13,42,500/-. The amount was credited to the

¶28

Page No.3 of 8

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.22957 of 2025

¶31

petitioner's bank account in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Hasthampatty Branch, Salem. During super check conducted by the Executive Engineer, it was found that petitioner made exorbitant claim and the amount received was not proportionate to the work executed by the petitioner. He further submitted that in the course of the same transaction and in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, A3/G.Mathivanan intentionally inflated the cost of the lights and its accessories to the tune of Rs.7,29,496/- in four places and Rs.3,68,666/- in two places. In fact, the actual estimated cost comes only to Rs.2,70,504/- in four place and Rs.1,31,334/- in two places as arrived at by the Executing Engineer during the super checks and thus for all six places a sum of Rs.10,98,162/- was in faulted.

¶32

Sl. No.	Place of the works executed	Rate of purchase of materials	Rate arrived by the super check officer	Difference	Deduction of taxes	Amount sanctioned
1.	Muthumariyamman Street, Kamaraj Nagar	Rs.2,50,000	67,626	1,82,374	26,250	2,23,750
2.	Near High Secondary School, Menasi	Rs.2,50,000	65,667	1,84,333	26,250	2,23,750
3.	Near Bus Stand, Tholanur village	Rs.2,50,000	67,626	1,82,374	26,250	2,23,750
4.	Near Nadoor Bus Stop, A.Pallaipatti Panchayat	Rs.2,50,000	67,626	1,82,374	26,250	2,23,750

¶33

Page No.4 of 8

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.22957 of 2025

¶36

Sl. No.	Place of the works executed	Rate of purchase of materials	Rate arrived by the super check officer	Difference	Deduction of taxes	Amount sanctioned
5.	Mel Boyar Street, Puthupatti Panchayat	Rs.2,50,000	67,626	1,82,374	26,250	2,23,750
6.	BC Street, Boothanatham Panchayat	Rs.2,50,000	67,667	1,84,333	26,250	2,23,750
	Total Rs.	Rs.15,00,000	4,01,838	10,98,162	1,57,500	13,42,500

¶37

5.He further submitted that now investigation completed, charge sheet

¶38

filed against the petitioner and two others and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.43 of 2025, which is pending trial before the Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri and summons already issued for the appearance of the petitioners on 19.11.2025. In this case, two Block Development Officers and private individuals are facing trial. In the charge sheet, statement of 17 witnesses and 36 documents annexed. The points raised by the petitioner are factual in nature and to be decided during trial.

¶39

6.Considering the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the materials, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was allotted work in 6 places, he also executed the same and amount also credited. The Executive

¶40

Page No.5 of 8

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

Crl.O.P.No.22957 of 2025

¶43

Engineer conducted super check and during the super check, huge variation

¶44

of amount received and work executed found. Further it is the case of

¶45

conspiracy and abetment with the public servant/BDO. Statement of witnesses confirms the role played by the petitioner along with other accused. Now investigation completed, charge sheet filed. The points raised by the petitioner are factual in nature, which are to be decided during trial. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition.

¶46

7.Hence, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only to the limited purpose of deciding the above petition. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the points during trial. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶47

11.11.2025

¶48

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral citation: Yes/No rsi

¶49

Page No.6 of 8

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

Crl.O.P.No.22957 of 2025

¶52

¶53

1.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dharmapuri.

¶54

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶55

Page No.7 of 8

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

Crl.O.P.No.22957 of 2025

¶58

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶59

rsi

¶60

Crl.O.P.No.22957 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.15686 of 2025

¶61

11.11.2025

¶62

Page No.8 of 8

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
First Information Report in Crime No.04/AC/2022 registered by the respondent police, sought to be quashed as against the petitioner.¶12
Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dharmapuri · 2022
Prior proceeding
FIR registered against five accused (three Block Development Officers of Pappireddipatti Panchayat Union and two private individuals) for offences under Sections 120(B), 406, 409 and 109 IPC and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.¶16
Prior proceeding
Six work orders for installation of LED Mini High Mass Lights were allotted to the petitioner (Proprietor of Sky Traders), each for Rs.2,50,000/-, totalling Rs.15,00,000/-; per counsel, the order issued on 18.09.2017 and the project was completed with payment received.¶21
Prior proceeding
Per petitioner's counsel, the work order was issued on 18.09.2017 after verification of tender application and financial/work credentials; petitioner completed the project and received the amount.¶26
Prior proceeding
Petitioner executed work in 6 places between 07.05.2018 and 23.05.2018, claimed Rs.15,00,000/- against bills Nos.1053 to 1058 and was paid Rs.13,42,500/-, credited to his Kotak Mahindra Bank account, Hasthampatty Branch, Salem.¶27
Prior proceeding
Super check conducted by the Executive Engineer found the petitioner's claim exorbitant and the amount received disproportionate to the work executed.¶31
Prior proceeding
Per the Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner (A3/G.Mathivanan) allegedly inflated the cost of lights and accessories (Rs.7,29,496/- in four places and Rs.3,68,666/- in two places) against actual estimated costs of Rs.2,70,504/- and Rs.1,31,334/- respectively, totalling Rs.10,98,162/- in fault across all six places.¶31
Prior proceeding
Investigation completed; charge sheet filed against the petitioner and two others and taken on file in C.C.No.43 of 2025, pending trial before the Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri; summons issued for appearance on 19.11.2025.¶38
Prior proceeding
Charge sheet annexes statements of 17 witnesses and 36 documents.¶38

G.Mathivanan v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Mathivanan v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Sabarinath Radhakrishnan Vs Meenakshi Sougoumar

R.Prabhakaran, M/41 Vs M.Balamurugan, M/36

Perumal Vs Prema

Ramchander Singh Vs State rep by the Inspector of Police

T.K.S. Bharathi, 38 Yrs, Vs Asst. Commissioner of Police

M/S.Jai Sakthi Builders Vs R.Ravichandran