WP CRL.(MD)/5085/2026 of A.Nambi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu on 10 September 2026

ORDER

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

2. The petitioner, who is the senior citizen, has filed this writ petition with a prayer to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to enquire his complaint dated 18.03.2026 and then take decision as per the facts mentioned in the complaint.

3. TThe learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that, on receipt of the complaint from the petitioner, the third respondent issued a summons dated 29.03.2026, directing the petitioner as well as the rival party to appear for enquiry on 30.03.2026. However, the petitioner did not appear on 30.03.2026 and, therefore, on the same day, the further enquiry on the complaint was closed. It is further submitted that no second or further summons was issued to the petitioner directing him to appear before the third respondent, failing which his complaint would be dropped or closed.

4. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner's complaint has already been attended to and, therefore, the present petition may

( Uploaded on: 11/09/2026 06:25:09 pm )

WP.Crl.(MD)No.5085 of 2026 be dismissed.

5. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the summons issued by the third respondent was received by the petitioner, he has been repeatedly and regularly appearing before the third respondent with the expectation that the police would to do justice. Though the petitioner has been regularly appearing before the third respondent and requesting appropriate action, no decision or effective action has been taken on his complaint. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

6. This Court is of the view that the submission made by the learned Government Advocate may be true as per the records. However, in reality, no effective action appears to have been taken on the petitioner's complaint. Therefore, a suitable direction is required to be issued to the police.

7. The learned Government Advocate, on instructions, submitted that the police may reopen the petitioner's complaint dated 18.03.2026 and, after issuing summons, enquire into the complaint by examining both the petitioner and the rival party and take a decision in accordance with law. It is further submitted that, if any offence is made out on the facts stated in the complaint, the police

( Uploaded on: 11/09/2026 06:25:09 pm )

WP.Crl.(MD)No.5085 of 2026 will proceed further in accordance with law.

8. Recording the above submission, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to enquire into the complaint of the petitioner by issuing summons to the petitioner as well as the rival party under Section 64 of the BNSS, 2023, and thereafter take an appropriate decision on the complaint in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. With the above said directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. 10.09.2026 TM To

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Srivaikundam, Thoothukudi District.

2. The Inspector of Police Seithunganallur Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

3. The Sub Inspector of Police Serakulam Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

( Uploaded on: 11/09/2026 06:25:09 pm )

WP.Crl.(MD)No.5085 of 2026

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

( Uploaded on: 11/09/2026 06:25:09 pm )

WP.Crl.(MD)No.5085 of 2026 DR.P.MURUGAN, J., TM WP.Crl.(MD).No.5085 of 2026 10.09.2026

( Uploaded on: 11/09/2026 06:25:09 pm )