WP CRL.(MD)/5270/2026 of M/s.Kosamattam Finance Compa Vs The Deputy Superintendent of on 23 September 2026

O R D E R

Heard both sides.

2. Mr. C. Susikumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) takes notice for respondents.

3. This petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, challenging the order of the 1st respondent in the form of letter dated Nil, whereby the 1st respondent directed the petitioner to produce the jewels mentioned in Sl.Nos.24 to 29, which were pledged with the petitioner company, along with the records in connection with Sl.Nos.5 to 9, together with the jewels, on or before 09.09.2026, before the 2nd respondent police.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is only a letter without a date and cannot be treated as summons for production of the document from the de-facto complainant. It is true that the petitioner had filed a complaint before the 2nd respondent police regarding the misappropriation of jewels and cash by the staff of the petitioner company, in collusion with the appraiser and the same was registered as Crime No.436 of 2026, under Sections 408, 420 of the IPC.

5. During the course of the investigation, the 1st respondent issued the said letter directing the petitioner to produce the jewels and records to proceed further with the investigation. The petitioner, being the de-facto complainant, has approached this Court to stop the investigation under the Writ Petition. Such a petition cannot be entertained, as the petitioner being de-facto complainant, is required to co-operate with the investigating agency and assist the Court to find out the truth.

6. The petitioner, being the de-facto complainant, dis-obeying the 1st respondent and approaching the Court is unexpected. The letter of the 1st respondent is not in the correct sense, of a summon. In that letter the Crime Number has been wrongly mentioned as Crime No.436 of 2026 instead of Crime No.436 of 2025. However, the FIR attached in the typed set of papers reveals that the case in Crime No.436 of 2025 was registered. Therefore, the discrepancy appears to be a clerical error in the letter issued by the 1st respondent.

7. The submission made in the present case shows that the petitioner being the de-facto complainant, is required to assist the Investigation Officer to find out the truth. Also they will comply the request made by the police in production of documents and jewels.

The apprehension of the petitioner is that, once the police received the jewels and records, the same may be retained as case property and produced before the Criminal Court. If it is so, the petitioner will approach the jurisdictional Magistrate Court and file appropriate application for return of the property, subject to the orders of the competent Court.

8. Recording the above aspects, the respondent police is directed to proceed with the investigation, as the petitioner is ready to produce the jewels and the records as call for the records to the 1st respondent within a period of one week.

9. During the course of the submissions, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner has issued a letter to one Mr. Arumugam Urundaikal, West Street, Marukalkurichi on 15.07.2026, stating that the pledged property would be brought for auction.

10. Since the properties mentioned in the notice are connected to the case property to the investigation, the petitioner should not be permitted to go for auction until the police complete the investigation and produce the properties before the Competent Court. After the Competent Court's intervention, the petitioner can workout for the remedy in accordance with law.

11. The apprehension expressed by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) is recorded, and the petitioner is directed not to go for any auction of the jewels pledged with the petitioner in connection with the Crime No.436 of 2025 until the order from the Competent Court.

12. Mr. R. Rajaram, Inspector of Police, of the 2nd respondent police was present. On enquiry, he submitted that, once the petitioner produces the jewels and records, the same will be received and the jewels will be tested whether it is original or forgery. After ascertaining the same and recording the statement from the petitioner as well as the other witnesses, the properties would be subjected to the case property and produced before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate Court.

13. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 3 weeks. Thereafter, the petitioner may work out its remedy before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate Court in the manner known to law.

14. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed with the above directions and consequently connected Miscellaneous is closed. 23-09-2026 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No psm To

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nanguneri Sub Division, Tirunelveli Dsitrict.

2. The Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

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

DR. P. MURUGAN, J.

psm

WP. CRL.(MD) No.5270 of 2026 23.09.2026