WP CRL.(MD)/5423/2026 of N.Nelson Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. on 28 September 2026

ORDER

This petition has been filed directing respondents herein to take appropriate criminal action against the proposed accused persons based on petitioners representation submit by in person dated 05.09.2026 within a stipulated period as prescribed by this Court.

2. Mr.D.Rajaboopathy, learned Government Advocate, (Crl. Side) takes notice for the respondents. Heard the counsel on either side and perused the records.

3. The petitioner submitted a representation/complaint to the first respondent, the Superintendent of Police, alleging that his wife, Nithya, was taken away by certain individuals, namely Munees Vijitha, and Premraj. In the petition, the petitioner prayed for directions to the first respondent to produce his wife, Nithya, as well as to recover an amount of 1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs only). ₹

4. According to the petitioner, the said amount represented his hard- earned money, which was entrusted to his wife, who subsequently invested it with the aforementioned persons for profit. However, neither the

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5423 of 2026 invested principal nor the profits were returned, and his wife was subsequently taken away by them.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) pointed out that a prayer for producing a person before this Court is not maintainable in this petition, as the appropriate remedy for seeking production of the petitioner's wife lies by way of filing a Habeas Corpus Petition (HCP) before the Division Bench.

6. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the complaint contained a prayer for the production of the body of his wife, the petitioner intends to file a separate Habeas Corpus Petition before the Hon'ble Division Bench. It was submitted that the present petition/complaint may be considered solely for the purpose of taking action regarding the recovery of money and taking appropriate action against the accused persons.

7. As per the facts revealed, the complaint was initially submitted only to the Superintendent of Police, the first Respondent and was not directly received by the second respondent police.

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5423 of 2026

8. Taking note of the above submissions, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh, detailed complaint to the second respondent police. Upon receipt of such fresh complaint, the second respondent police is directed to conduct a due inquiry in accordance with Section 64 of the BNSS, 2023, and dispose of the same within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter.

9. With the above said directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. 28-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TM To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

2. The Inspector of Police Utchipuli Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

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

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5423 of 2026 DR.P.MURUGAN, J. TM WP Crl.(MD) No. 5423 of 2026 28-09-2026