Madras High Court
WP CRL.(MD)/5729/2026 of Muniyandi @ Daniel Vs The Deputy Inspector General on 26 October 2026
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5729 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN
THILAKAVADI
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5729 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011469732026}
Muniyandi @ Daniel
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Tirunelveli Circle, Tirunelveli.
2. The District Superintendent of Police Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Sankarankoil,
Tenkasi District.
4. Sujith Anand
The Inspector of Police,
Sankarankoil Taluk Police Station,
Tenkasi District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the Respondents 1 to 3 herein to conduct enquiry and investigation by initiating take action against the 4th respondent herein, based on the petitioner’s complaint, dated 28.09.2026 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.
__________
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 03:05:57 pm )
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5729 of 2026
For Petitioner(s):
M/s.P.Singaravel
For Respondent(s):
Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R1 to R3
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 to 3 herein to conduct enquiry and investigation by initiating take action against the 4th respondent herein, based on the petitioner’s complaint, dated 28.09.2026 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.
2. Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3. Heard the counsel on either side and perused the records.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's complaint/representation may be disposed of by the respondents.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is a history-sheeted offender maintaining a history sheet on the file of the respondent police. Therefore, the respondent police are under a statutory duty to monitor his activities and movements. He submitted that __________
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 03:05:57 pm )
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5729 of 2026 the visits to the petitioner’s residence are strictly part of routine surveillance in terms of the Police Standing Orders and do not amount to harassment.
5. It is well settled law that maintaining a history sheet and conducting surveillance on habitual offenders or persons with criminal antecedents in accordance with law is a permissible exercise of administrative power to maintain public order. Since it is submitted that history sheet is opened against the petitioner, the petitioner can work out his remedies in accordance with law before the competent forum.
6. Recording the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and with the above said observations, this writ petition is dismissed. 26-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TM To
1. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Tirunelveli Circle, Tirunelveli. __________
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 03:05:57 pm )
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5729 of 2026
2. The District Superintendent of Police Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Sankarankoil, Tenkasi District.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. __________
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 03:05:57 pm )
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5729 of 2026 K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J. TM WP Crl.(MD) No. 5729 of 2026 26-10-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 03:05:57 pm )