Hemavathi v. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by The Superintendent of Police
WP Crl.(MD)/446/2026 · 2026-01-29
S Srimathy
Transfer Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 86796 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 86796 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29-01-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY WP Crl.(MD) NO. 446 of 2026 Hemavathi Petitioner(s) Vs 1.State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by The Superintendent of Police, Subramaniyam Tiruchirappalli District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Manapparai Sub Division Tiruchirappalli District.
3. Inspector Of Police Puthanatham Police Station Tiruchirappalli District.
4. Velliyan
5. Azhagi
6. Kalaimathi Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s): Dr.R.ALAGUMANI For Respondent(s): Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (Crl.side) for R1 to R3 Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent No.3 to take appropriate action on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 08.01.2026 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ORDER The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent No.3 to take appropriate action on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 08.01.2026 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court. 2.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the official respondents have considered the petitioner's complaint and closed the same. 3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the official respondents have not called the petitioner for inquiry. 4.The allegation is that in one another case, the petitioner is the defacto complainant is being threatened by the accused herein and therefore, the petitioner seeks to reconsider the same. 5.Considering the nature of offence, this Court is inclined to set aside the closure report and the official respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner's case and pass appropriate orders. The petitioner shall cooperate for the investigation. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs. 29-01-2026 Tmg To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Subramaniyam Tiruchirappalli District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Manapparai Sub Division Tiruchirappalli District.
3. Inspector Of Police Puthanatham Police Station Tiruchirappalli District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis