Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 36070 (MAD)

M.Venkatesan v. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by The Superintendent of Police,

WP Crl.(MD)/2998/2026 · 2026-06-09

L Victoria Gowri

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.2998 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.06.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI W.P.Crl.(MD)No.2998 of 2026 M.Venkatesan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District. 2. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, O/o. Superintendent of Police Campus, Thoothukudi District. 3. Abraham 4. A.Velmurugan 5. Usharani 6. Jeyarani ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct the enquiry and take appropriate actions as against the respondents 3 to 6 based on the representation dated 17.04.2025 within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court. 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.(MD)No.2998 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mathankarthick For Respondents : Mr.D.Rajaboopathy (R1 & R2) Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) ORDER This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct the enquiry and take appropriate actions as against the respondents 3 to 6 based on the representation dated 17.04.2025 within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a goldsmith and the respondents 3 to 6 are his local villages. On 22.01.2025, the 3rd and 4th respondents contacted the petitioner and had borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the 5th respondent. However, the same was not returned. In this regard, a complaint was lodged. However, no effective action was taken on the said complaint, and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police submitted that enquiry was conducted and the same was closed due to non cooperation of the petitioner. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.(MD)No.2998 of 2026 4. Heard the learned counsel on either sides and carefully perused the materials placed before this Court. Since no adverse order is proposed to be passed against the private respondents, notice to them is dispensed with. 5. Considering the fact that the enquiry was closed due to the non cooperation of the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent police with all necessary documents to substantiate his claim and on such appearance, the second respondent police is directed to reopen the petitioner's representation dated 17.04.2025 and conduct an enquiry in this regard, after issuing summons to the parties concerned, under Section 64 of the BNSS, and conclude the same, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 09.06.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No sm 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Crl.(MD)No.2998 of 2026 L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J. Sm TO:- 1. The Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District. 2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, O/o. Superintendent of Police Campus, Thoothukudi District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Order made in W.P.Crl.(MD)No.2998 of 2026 Dated 09.06.2026 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis