Madras High Court
WP Crl.(MD)/6068/2026 of Jeyanthi Vs The Inspector of General Police on 10 November 2026
WP Crl.(MD) No. 6068 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE P.MURUGAN
WP Crl.(MD) No. 6068 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011574352026}
Jeyanthi
W/o.(Late) Balamurugan,
No.452B/5, Palakku Street,
Shanmugasigamani Nagar,
Kovilpatti Taluk,
Thoothukudi District
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Inspector of General Police,
South Zone,
Madurai District-625 007.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli District-627107
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi District-628002
4. The Inspector of Police
Kovilpatti West Police Station,
Kovilpatti,
Thoothukudi District-628501
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner representation dated 10.10.2026 and take appropriate action on her original complaint dated 06.08.2026 and further direct the competent superior police authority to conduct an
WP Crl.(MD) No. 6068 of 2026
independent departmental enquiry against the 4th respondent for dereliction of duty, biased conduct and improper handling of the petitioner complaint within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner(s)
:M/s Gowtham
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 petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent the Superintendent of Police to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.10.2026 and to take appropriate action on her original complaint dated 06.08.2026.
2. When the matter is taken up today, the learned Government Advocate submits that the complaint dated 06.08.2026 was enquired by the 4th respondent. The learned Government Advocate further submits that during the enquiry, the complainant herself gave a statement on 24.09.2026 stating that no further action was required against the Periyathai. However, upon perusal of the statements of the complainant dated 21.09.2026 and 24.09.2026, no such statement is found. It appears the learned Government Advocate was not properly instructed or the statement was not properly verified.
3. As per the record, though the police enquired into the matter involving both the complainant and the rival party Periyathai and closed the complaint through a closure report dated 24.09.2026 advising the
WP Crl.(MD) No. 6068 of 2026 petitioner to approach the Civil Court, the said closure report was not served on or supplied to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the closure report was dispatched only on 09.11.2026 and has not yet been received by the petitioner. This reflects an unexplained delay of over a month. If the closure report has been served on the petitioner immediately, the petitioner would not have been unnecessarily compelled to approach this Court and incur expenses towards court fees and legal representation.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that during the police enquiry, the 4th respondent acted inappropriately toward the petitioner who is a widow and also submitted that the 4th respondent has uttered the words against the petitioner as follows: tpjitahf ,Ue;Jtpl;L eP Vd; ,g;go bra;fpwha;/ eP igj;jpaf;fhhpahf ,Ue;J Vd; ,g;go gz;qfpwha;/ Consequently, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 10.10.2026 to the 3rd respondent Superintendent of Police requesting appropriate action against the 4th respondent. The learned Government Advocate states that he has no instructions from any of the respondents regarding this representation dated 10.10.2026.
6. Though the petitioner’s complaint dated 06.09.2026 was closed as early as 24.09.2026, it was not communicated to the petitioner
WP Crl.(MD) No. 6068 of 2026 immediately, and as per the submission of the learned Government Advocate, it was dispatched only yesterday, i.e., 09.11.2026.
7. In view of the above facts, the following directions are issued:
(i) The 3rd respondent Superintendent of Police is directed to look into the representation dated 10.10.2026 sent by the petitioner, conduct an enquiry with both the petitioner and the 4th respondent, and pass appropriate orders on the merits within a period of four
(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(ii) Due to the failure to dispatch the closure report at the earliest, which necessitated the petitioner to approach this Court and incur legal costs, the 4th respondent be careful in future while closing the complaint. The closure report be setn to the party concerned at once without any delay.
8. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. 10-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TM To
1. The Inspector of General Police South Zone Madurai District-625 007
WP Crl.(MD) No. 6068 of 2026
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Tirunelveli Range Tirunelveli District-627107
3. The Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of Police Thoothukudi District-628002
4. The Inspector of Police Kovilpatti west Police Station Kovilpatti Thoothukudi District-628501
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai
WP Crl.(MD) No. 6068 of 2026 DR.P.MURUGAN, J. TM WP Crl.(MD) No. 6068 of 2026 10-11-2026