Disposed

T. Dinesh Kumar v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Madras HC14 Oct 2025CRL OP(MD)/12637/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A physically challenged temporary employee alleged he was used to collect bribes from quarry operators via forged challans in the Dindigul Geology and Mining Department, and sought police protection. Police reports disclosed forged challans and misappropriation. The court disposed of the petition directing VAC investigation of two related cases within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with directions for VAC investigation of Crime Nos.194/2025 and 3/2020, wider probe into other offices, asset verification, and completion within six months.

T. Dinesh Kumar Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep.by — Mining and Natural Resources | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.OP(MD)No.12637 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

RESERVED ON : 29.08.2025

¶4

DELIVERED ON : 14.10.2025

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶7

Crl.OP(MD)No.12637 of 2025

T.Dinesh Kumar

: Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶12

2.The Inspector of Police, Ambathurai Police Station, Dindigul District.

¶13

3.Mariammal

¶14

4.Abinesh

¶15

5.Angayarkanni : Respondents

¶16

[R.5 impleaded vide order dated 29.07.2025]

¶17

1/15

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.OP(MD)No.12637 of 2025

¶20

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS seeking a direction to the

¶21

respondents 1 & 2 to provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ganesan

¶23

For Respondents: Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabhakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for R.1, R.2

¶24

Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj for R.3

¶25

Mr.C.Prithviraj for R.4

¶26

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner, a physically challenged person, has filed this petition

¶29

seeking a direction to the respondents 1 & 2 to provide police protection to his life and limb and also to his family members.

¶30

2.According to the petitioner, he was temporarily engaged by the District Collector, Dindigul, as an Accountant in the District Mineral

¶31

2/15

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.OP(MD)No.12637 of 2025

¶34

Foundation Trust attached to the Office of the Geology and Mining Department, Dindigul, with effect from 03.07.2018. His service was extended up to 24.08.2020. Thereafter, though no formal order of extension was passed, he was unofficially engaged by the Assistant Directors on a consolidated salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. He states that he was used by the officials for collecting bribes from quarry operators.

¶35

3.The petitioner alleges that the third respondent / Assistant Geologist, who hold the post of Assistant Geologist and thereafter, Assistant Director (in-charge) between August 2022 and December 2023, issued fake challans. The petitioner was made a scapegoat for these illegal transactions. The petitioner further alleges that the third respondent, along with the fourth respondent, a quarry operator, issued life threats to him, driving him even to the extent of attempting suicide. According to him, on 17.07.2025, he sent a representation through RPAD to the respondents 1 & 2, disclosing these facts and seeking protection. As no action was taken, he has approached this Court.

¶36

3/15

¶37

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

¶38

Crl.OP(MD)No.12637 of 2025

¶39

4.In support of his case, the petitioner has filed a typed set of papers, showing transactions between his bank account and quarry operators between 2021 and 2023, involving several thousands of rupees. According to him, these amounts represent bribes collected from quarry operators on behalf of the third respondent.

¶40

5.Considering the allegations found in the petition, this Court ordered notice and directed the respondents to file their response.

¶41

6.The second respondent / Inspector of Police has filed a report stating that, pursuant to the complaint dated 17.07.2025, a preliminary enquiry was conducted on 30.07.2025. According to the second respondent, the petitioner, in his statement to the police, stated that quarry owners made payments to him both directly and through UPI transactions. The third respondent created forged challans and forwarded them to his WhatsApp, which he in turn delivered to quarry owners. The petitioner stated that he would hand over the money received from quarry operators to the third respondent, who paid him a nominal amount of Rs.500/- or Rs.

¶42

4/15

¶43

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

¶44

Crl.OP(MD)No.12637 of 2025

¶45

1000/-. The petitioner, in the enquiry, admitted that from the amount paid by the fourth respondent, he had returned Rs.1,50,000/- to him, but the fourth respondent continued to threaten him, demanding a further sum of Rs.7,00,000/-.

¶46

7.The third respondent / Assistant Geologist, in her statement before the second respondent, denied all allegations. She stated she had no connection with the petitioner, never received bribes through him or anyone else, never directed him to create forged challans, and had merely warned him not to visit her office. According to her, the complaint was filed out of grudge.

¶47

8.The fourth respondent / quarry operator, in his statement before the second respondent, admitted that he lacked computer knowledge and therefore entrusted the petitioner with making online payments towards seigniorage fee, Green Fund, District Mineral Foundation contribution, and Income Tax (TDS). He alleged that the petitioner embezzled the entrusted amounts, issued forged challans showing “successful” status, and cheated

¶48

5/15

¶49

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

¶50

Crl.OP(MD)No.12637 of 2025

¶51

him. He came to know of the fraud when the Assistant Director issued a

¶52

memorandum. He has sought criminal action against the petitioner.

¶53

9.The second respondent, after the preliminary enquiry, has reported:

¶54

i) There was no order appointing the petitioner in the District Mineral Foundation Trust or the Department of Geology and Mining beyond August 2020.

¶55

ii) Quarry operators entrusted amounts through Google Pay and PhonePe, which the petitioner was supposed to pay towards mandatory statutory charges.

¶56

iii) The petitioner confused the bribe amounts with official payments.

¶57

iv) The petitioner admitted partial repayment of Rs.1,50,000/- to the fourth respondent, showing his involvement in manipulation and forgery of challans and misappropriation of Government money.

¶58

v) The allegations in the complaint are threefold: (a) that he was engaged unofficially by the third respondent; (b) that he collected bribes on her behalf; and (c) that he was threatened by respondents 3 & 4.

¶59

vi) Engaging a third person without formal appointment requires

¶60

6/15

¶61

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

¶62

Crl.OP(MD)No.12637 of 2025

¶63

departmental action.

¶64

vii) If large-scale misappropriation of Government money is revealed,

¶65

the matter must be referred to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing.

¶66

viii) With regard to life threat, FIR in Crime No.194 of 2025 dated 30.07.2025 has been registered against respondents 3 & 4 and others for offences under Sections 296(b), 108, 351(2) BNS read with Section 92(a) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

¶67

ix) The preliminary enquiry discloses creation of forged challans. Whether such challans were created by the petitioner alone or along with the third respondent can be ascertained only in further investigation.

¶68

10.The second respondent further noted that the third respondent was Assistant Geologist, Dindigul, from February 2022 to July 2022; incharge Assistant Director from August 2022 to December 2023; and reverted as Assistant Geologist until February 2024, when she was transferred to Trichy. Hence, the alleged offence of forged challans and misappropriation could have taken place during August 2022–December 2023, when she held charge.

¶69

7/15

¶70

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

¶71

Crl.OP(MD)No.12637 of 2025

¶72

11.The first respondent / Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, has filed a report substantially reiterating the above findings.

¶73

12.The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit that quarry operators are required to pay seigniorage fee and 10% Green Fund fee, and while the Green Fund was duly credited to the Government account, the seigniorage fee was not. However, fake challans showed “successful” transactions and, based on such challans, permits were issued. On detecting this irregularity, she issued show cause notices, to which the quarry operators replied that they had paid the fee through one Dinesh Kumar, the present petitioner. The quarry operators further stated that the petitioner had created forged challans and, upon receipt of notices, he repaid the amounts from his own account on 20.12.2023, 21.12.2023, 22.12.2023, and 26.12.2023. She submits that she also sent a report dated 22.12.2023 to the District Collector. The third respondent adds that she was transferred in February 2024 and has since been out of Dindigul District for 1½ years.

¶74

8/15

¶75

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

¶76

Crl.OP(MD)No.12637 of 2025

¶77

13.According to her, the petitioner was only a temporary outsourcing staff appointed by the Collector till 2020, whereas she joined duty in 2022, and hence, the allegations concerning 2020 could not relate to her. She further states that she was placed under suspension for departmental lapses but later reinstated and that disciplinary proceedings are still pending. She asserts that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition only with a view to escape from departmental and criminal action, and therefore, the allegations levelled against her are false.

¶78

14.The third respondent has produced copies of FIR in Crime No.3 of 2020 dated 20.10.2020 by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Dindigul, against Perumal (Assistant Director), Parvathy (Assistant), Selvamani (Office Assistant), Dinesh Kumar (petitioner), and Santhi (temporary staff). She has also produced the show cause notice issued to quarry operators on 04.12.2023 and their replies, along with her report dated 22.12.2023 to the District Collector regarding fake challans.

¶79

9/15

¶80

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

¶81

Crl.OP(MD)No.12637 of 2025

¶82

15.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also produced FIR in Crime No.194 of 2025 dated 30.07.2025 against respondents 3 & 4 based on the petitioner’s complaint.

¶83

16.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record.

¶84

17.It is not disputed that the petitioner, though engaged only temporarily up to August 2020, was used as an intermediary in mining transactions. Quarry operators have themselves admitted in replies that payments were routed through the petitioner’s browsing centre. Bank statements filed by the petitioner show transfers from quarry operators to the petitioner during 2021–2023 and the petitioner claims that it includes bribe amount collected by him on behalf of the officials, including the third respondent, from the quarry operators.

¶85

18.The records show that the third respondent, Assistant Geologist, issued notices to the quarry operators in December 2023 on finding that

¶86

10/15

¶87

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

¶88

Crl.OP(MD)No.12637 of 2025

¶89

seigniorage fee had not reached the Government treasury though fake challans indicated successful transactions. The quarry operators, in their replies, attributed the payments to the petitioner, and remitted the shortfall on 20.12.2023, 21.12.2023, 22.12.2023, and 26.12.2023. The third respondent submitted a report dated 22.12.2023 to the District Collector, but despite such knowledge of misappropriation, neither she nor the District-level officers of the Geology and Mining Department took the mandatory step of lodging a police complaint.

¶90

19.This omission, despite clear indications of fraud and loss to the State exchequer, reflects a serious dereliction of duty on the part of departmental officials. Their inaction has permitted the fraud to continue unchecked and has necessitated intervention by this Court. In fact, the quarry operators also remained silent. Only after the petitioner approached this Court, did the police register FIR in Crime No.194 of 2025.

¶91

20.An earlier FIR in Crime No.3 of 2020 by the Vigilance and AntiCorruption Wing, Dindigul, already names the petitioner and departmental

¶92

11/15

¶93

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

¶94

Crl.OP(MD)No.12637 of 2025

¶95

officials for similar offences. Investigation in that case has remained inconclusive for five years, enabling continuation of the same modus operandi.

¶96

21.These facts disclose a systemic illegality in the Department of Geology and Mining at Dindigul, involving fake challans, misappropriation of seigniorage fee, and use of temporary staff to route illegal transactions. The failure of authorities to promptly lodge complaints and the inaction of Vigilance in concluding Crime No.3 of 2020 have facilitated recurrence of such misconduct.

¶97

22.This Court is of the view that the allegations in this petition cannot be brushed aside as mere inter se disputes. The nature of transactions, the period involved, the uniform stand of quarry operators, and the documentary evidence require a thorough probe by the Vigilance and AntiCorruption Department.

¶98

23.Accordingly, this Court is issuing the following directions:-

¶99

12/15

¶100

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

¶101

Crl.OP(MD)No.12637 of 2025

¶102

The Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and AntiCorruption, Madurai, through a responsible Deputy Superintendent of Police, shall conduct the investigation on the petitioner’s complaint in Crime No.194 of 2025 on the file of the Ambathurai Police Station, Dindigul along with Crime No.3 of 2020 on the file of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dindigul.

¶103

The Additional Superintendent of Police shall directly monitor the investigation, to be conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.

¶104

The scope of investigation shall also cover whether similar transactions of fake challans and misappropriation are taking place in other Geology and Mining Offices in the southern districts.

¶105

The assets and financial dealings of all parties involved in the present case, particularly those of the Assistant Geologist concerned / third respondent and the petitioner, shall also be verified, to determine whether there has been any disproportionate accumulation of wealth or illicit financial gain connected to the alleged transactions.

¶106

The investigation shall be concluded within a period of six months.

¶107

13/15

¶108

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

¶109

Crl.OP(MD)No.12637 of 2025

¶110

● Registry shall forward a copy of this order, together with the writ petition, the additional typed set of papers filed by the petitioner, the counter affidavits of respondents, and the reports of the Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police, to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madurai.

¶111

With the above observations and directions, this criminal original petition stands disposed of.

¶112

Internet : Yes gk To

¶113

14.10.2025

¶114

1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶115

2.The Inspector of Police, Ambathurai Police Station, Dindigul District.

¶116

3.The Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Madurai.

¶117

14/15

¶118

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

¶119

Crl.OP(MD)No.12637 of 2025

¶120

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶121

¶122

Crl.OP(MD)No.12637 of 2025

¶123

14.10.2025

¶124

15/15

¶125

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

T. Dinesh Kumar v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Dinesh Kumar v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Ayyappan Textiles Limited Vs The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

M/s. A.2731, The National Co.Op. Sugar Mills Ltd., Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II

Y-92, Manavalakurichy Primary Vs R.Maheswari, W/O.Arul Antony

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Vs M/S. Peace Trust

M/S. Alagappa Preparatory Nursery and Vs the Deputy Director

R. Somasundaram Vs The State of Tamilnadu