BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 14.08.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE P. MURUGAN WP.CRL.(MD). No.4595 of 2026 Jeyaraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Commissioner of Police, Commissioner of Police Office, Madurai Rural, Madurai. 2. The Inspector of Police, CCB Police Station-I Madurai City. 3. The Inspector of Police, Koodalpudur Police Station, Madurai City. 4. T.Sundaram 5. Sureshpandi ... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 not to interfere the money dispute (business transaction) between the the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis in connection with pending O.S.No.108 of 2026 and 195 of 2026 on the file of the 3rd Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town, and based on the petitioner's representation dated 03.08.2026 within a stipulated period as prescribed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balaji, For Respondent : Mr.C.Christopher, Counsel for State of TN(Crl.Side) for R1 to 3, Mr.S.Poornachandran, for R4 & R5, O R D E R Heard both sides. 2. Mr.S.Poornachandran, learned counsel filed vakalat for the respondents 4 and 5. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the fourth respondent had business transactions relating to the sale of jewels. In connection with the said business transactions, the fourth respondent lodged a complaint before the third respondent, and the fifth respondent, who is a relative of the fourth respondent, lodged another complaint before the second 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent. Pursuant to the said complaints, the third respondent directed the petitioner to appear before the police for enquiry. Since the petitioner was being called by two different police authorities in connection with the complaints lodged by the fourth and fifth respondents, the respondents 2 and 3 were causing hardship to the petitioner. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The learned State Counsel submitted that, since the complaints are pending enquiry, the police had summoned the petitioner on three occasions. However, as the petitioner failed to appear before the police, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. The learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that, in an earlier petition filed by the petitioner before this Court, it was stated that the petitioner had committed certain offences and, therefore, he had not cooperated with the police. Since the petitioner had failed to cooperate with the enquiry despite the summons being issued again, the present writ petition has been filed. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the enquiry on the date fixed by this Court. 7. Since separate complaints have been lodged by respondents 4 and 5 and are pending before respondents 2 and 3, it is submitted by both the learned counsel that the complaint lodged by the fifth respondent may also be enquired into by the second respondent, viz., the Inspector of Police, CCB-I, Madurai City. 8. Recording the same, the second respondent is directed to issue summons to the petitioner, enquire into both the complaints, take a final decision on the said complaints, and proceed in accordance with law. 9. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. 14.08.2026 LS 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TO 1. The Commissioner of Police, Commissioner of Police Office, Madurai Rural, Madurai. 2. The Inspector of Police, CCB Police Station-I Madurai City. 3. The Inspector of Police, Koodalpudur Police Station, Madurai City. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis DR. P. MURUGAN,J. LS WP.Crl.(MD) No.4595 of 2026 14.08.2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis