Madras High Court
WP CRL.(MD)/5341/2026 of Rakkammal Vs The Superintendent of Police on 24 September 2026
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5341 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE P.MURUGAN
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5341 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011327852026}
Rakkammal
W/o.Neelamegama Thevar,
T.Puliyankulam,
Palayanur Post,
Sivagangai District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Superintendent of Police
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Thirupathur Road,
Sivagangai - 630 562,
Sivagangai District.
2. The Inspector of police
Palayanur Police Station,
Palayanur,
Sivagangai District.
3. Mayandi
S/o.Sangan,
Vaadi, Thirupuvanam Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 take appropriate action against the respondent No.3 on the basis of the petitioners representation dt. 09.08.2026 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5341 of 2026
For Petitioner(s):
Ms.Vigneshwari V
For Respondent(s):
Mr.D.Rajaboopathy,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
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
The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2, police officials, to take appropriate action against the 3rd respondent based on the petitioner's representation dated 09.08.2026.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she extended a loan to the 3rd respondent in three installments: Rs.50,000/- on 02.01.2016, Rs.80,000/- on 20.08.2017, and Rs.26,000/- on 02.08.2018, totaling Rs.1,56,000/- on an interest basis. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent failed to repay the amount. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the 2nd respondent police on 04.03.2026.
3. Upon receipt of the complaint, the 2nd respondent assigned C.S.R. No. 66 of 2026 and summoned the 3rd respondent. During the inquiry, the 3rd respondent gave an undertaking agreeing to settle the borrowed principal amount of Rs.1,56,000/- within six months, which was accepted by the petitioner. However, the 3rd respondent failed to abide by the undertaking. Hence, the petitioner submitted a further representation dated
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5341 of 2026
09.08.2026 seeking re-inquiry, and subsequently filed the present petition for directions.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) takes notice for respondents 1 and 2 and submits that during the enquiry conducted on 15.03.2026, the petitioner herself gave a statement stating that the dispute is purely a money transaction of a civil nature and that she would approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate remedies.
5. A perusal of the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner reveals that the 3rd respondent had given an undertaking agreeing to settle a sum of Rs.70,000/- to the petitioner in two installments of Rs.35,000/- each, the first installment being payable on 05.06.2026. Since the 3rd respondent failed to pay as promised, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the police.
6. The representation dated 09.08.2026 clearly discloses that the alleged monetary transactions took place between 2016 and 2018. The claim for recovery of money is barred by limitation. It is unclear how the petitioner was advised to approach the police authorities for the recovery
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5341 of 2026
of a time-barred debt.
7. Since the 3rd respondent executed an undertaking on 05.03.2026 agreeing to pay Rs.70,000/- in two equal installments, the petitioner ought to have worked out her remedies based on the said undertaking before the appropriate Civil Forum. Without resorting to civil remedies, the petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to convert a civil recovery dispute into a criminal proceedings. Whether a time-barred debt stands revived by virtue of the undertaking given by the borrower is a matter to be adjudicated solely by a competent Civil Court.
8. In view of the above, this Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed without issuing notice to the 3rd respondent.
9. Accordingly, this writ Petition is dismissed. 24-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TM
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5341 of 2026
To
1. The Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Road, Sivagangai - 630 562, Sivagangai District.
2. The Inspector of police Palayanur Police Station, Palayanur, Sivagangai District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5341 of 2026
DR.P.MURUGAN, J. TM WP Crl.(MD) No. 5341 of 2026 24-09-2026