B. Mohammed Siraj v. The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep. By Its The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :02.04.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI B.Mohammed Siraj ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption Department, Ramanathapuram District.

[Crime No.21 of 2024] ... Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records relating to the proceedings of Crime No.21 of 2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption Department, Ramanathapuram District as against the petitioner and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

A case in Crime No.21 of 2024 has been registered by the respondent police as against the officials of the Keelakarai Municipality 1/4

that the officials have misappropriated the government fund to the tune of Rs.4,06,391.21 and caused a loss of Rs.11,50,088/- without laying pipelines. Several officers have been arrayed as accused and this petitioner is arrayed as A2 that he has served as the Commissioner of the Municipality from 01.10.2014 to 01.02.2015 and he is also responsible for the loss. The petitioner has been placed under suspension pursuant to the criminal case. He has filed this application to quash the said proceedings. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not involved in misappropriation of funds expect approving the bills submitted by the contractors.

The execution of the work has to be monitored only by the field level officers and allegation in this case is pertaining to non-execution of work as per the terms of the contract. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing submits that almost the investigation in this case has been completed and they are not inclined to proceed as against the petitioner and they are intending to recommend for initiating departmental proceedings for his dereliction of duty. He further submits that the petitioner has sanctioned around Rs.75,81,564/- during his tenure, without ascertaining whether the works have been executed or not.

Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner is expected to monitor the execution of the work, however, he has failed to conduct field inspection and therefore, they are to recommend disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

4.Recording the above submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is not included in the final report, this criminal original petition is closed.

02.04.2026 DSK To 1.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption Department, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Superintendent of Police, South Range, Vigilance and Anticorruption Department, Chennai.

Copy to The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

3/4

B.PUGALENDHI, J., DSK 02.04.2026 4/4