WP Crl.(MD)/6141/2026 of S. Iyyappan Vs The State of Tamilnadu on 11 November 2026

O R D E R

This petition is filed to direct the third respondent to take necessary steps based on the second respondent’s complaint dated 05.10.2026 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2026.

2. The petitioner is a resident of Sri Lakshmipuram, Variyoor Post, Kanyakumari District. He lodged a complaint dated 22.09.2026 before the first respondent, namely, the Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, stating that his property had been sold somebody by means of forged documents, mentioning the names of Harikrishnan, Vanaja, Aadhilingam, Vedhala Iyankan. Therefore, he sought appropriate legal action against the persons, who had created forged documents relating to the petitioner's property and executed the same in favour of Vanaja, by Harikrishnan.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said complaint could have been given in person at the office of the first respondent. In the meantime, the petitioner also lodged a complaint before the Sub Registrar, Kottaram, dated 22.09.2026, regarding the manipulation of government records and requested that no further encumbrances be created. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an RTI application dated 12.10.2026, before the Sub Registrar, Kottaram, and obtained certain particulars, by a letter dated 14.10.2026. Based on the complaint given by the petitioner, the said Sub Registrar, Kottaram, sent a letter dated 05.10.2026 to the Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari Police Station, Kanyakumari District, who is the third respondent in this case, stating that certain acts of forgery had taken place with regard to the properties of Iyyappan and that a document had been executed by Harikrishnan in favour of Vanaja. Having the public record has been manipulated by two private parties in respect of the properties belonging to a third party, the Sub-Registrar requested the Inspector of Police, through the official letter dated 05.10.2026, to take appropriate action in accordance with law. However, the third respondent failed to take any action on the official communication sent by the Sub Registrar.

4. Aggrieved by the inaction of the police authorities, the petitioner filed the present petition. The petitioner also sent a reminder dated 21.10.2026 to the first respondent, referring to his earlier complaint dated 25.09.2026 and requesting that legal action be taken against the persons concerned. Since no action had been taken by any of the police authorities, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a direction to the third respondent to take appropriate steps based on the complaint forwarded by the second respondent, namely, the Sub Registrar, dated 05.10.2026, by considering the petitioner's complaint dated 21.10.2026, within a stipulated time.

5. When the matter was taken up in the morning session and having known the facts and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), and upon perusing the materials available on record, this Court finds that there appears to be something seriously amiss in the failure of the third respondent to take action. The Sub-Registrar, who is a public authority, had addressed an official communication to the Inspector of Police, stating that certain acts of forgery had taken place in the public records by creating forged documents in respect of the petitioner's property and that the documents had been executed by Harikrishnan and others in favour of Vanaja. According to the petitioner's contention, the property belongs to him and is also the subject matter of a civil case. Therefore, the Sub Registrar requested the police authorities to initiate criminal action in the manner known to law.

6. When this Court called upon the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) to ascertain the action taken by the third respondent, the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) submitted that the complaint had been received by the third respondent on 14.10.2026 and that the matter was being processed for further action.

7. Thereafter, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) to ascertain the actual status of the complaint and directed the Inspector of Police to appear either in person or through video conferencing, since the Inspector of Police is serving in Kanyakumari District.

8. Accordingly, the Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari Police Station, Kanyakumari District, Mr.Bharathlingam, appeared through video conferencing during the afternoon session.

9. When this Court called upon the Inspector of Police to explain the action taken by the third respondent and posed certain questions to elicit the relevant facts, he submitted that the complaint sent by the Sub Registrar has been received by him on 07.10.2026. Initially, he stated that he sought for legal opinion. However, upon further questioning by this Court, he finally admitted that no legal opinion had been sought so far and that he intended to obtain a legal opinion from the Government Advocate, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

10. He initially stated that he had sought a legal opinion. Thereafter, he submitted that he intended to seek such an opinion and was taking steps to send a communication to the Government Advocate for obtaining the same. Such a statement made by the Inspector of Police, who is heading the main town police station in Kanyakumari District, is not acceptable. When this Court called upon him to explain the status of the complaint forwarded by the Sub Registrar, it was expected that the officer concerned would provide a proper explanation.

11. It is pertinent to note that the Sub Registrar, being a public authority, had sent an official communication stating that forgery of documents had taken place in his office without his knowledge and that the same came to light after the petitioner's complaint was received. Immediately thereafter, the public authority forwarded a complaint to the police authorities, requesting them to intervene and take necessary legal action.

12. Even after receiving the said complaint from the Sub Registrar, the Inspector of Police remained silent for nearly 34 days without taking any action. Such conduct clearly indicates that he is not the appropriate person to head the police station. The affected person not only made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, but he had also the Sub Registrar. Acting upon the complaint received from the petitioner, the Sub Registrar immediately took steps and submitted a written complaint dated 05.10.2026 to the Inspector of Police. However, no action has been taken till date.

13. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that, after the filing of the present case and on going through the papers, he had advised the police to proceed with the complaint sent by the Sub Registrar in the manner known to law. The submission made by the learned Government Advocate is recorded.

14. Thereafter, the learned Government Advocate further submitted that there was a delay on the part of the Inspector of Police and that he has advised the police to proceed not only with the present complaint but also with any other complaint received at the police station, immediately and in accordance with law. The said submission is taken on record.

15. The Inspector of Police, Mr.Bharathlingam also submitted that he will attend to the complaint given by the Sub Registrar immediately. Having kept the matter pending for nearly 34 days, the Inspector of Police has come forward with such a submission only after the intervention of this Court, which is not satisfactory. Even in the initial stage itself, the Inspector of Police stated that he has sought a legal opinion. However, he subsequently admitted that no legal opinion had been sought so far and that he was only intending to initiate steps to obtain such an opinion. This contradictory statement raises serious doubts regarding the manner in which he has been discharging his official duties. Whether he is apprehensive of the persons allegedly involved or whether the complaint forwarded by the Sub-Registrar is not convenient for him to act upon is not known to this Court.

16. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the complaint forwarded by the Sub Registrar, dated 05.10.2026, deserves to be entrusted to some other Inspector of Police in Kanyakumari District, and the said officer shall proceed further in accordance with law.

17. In view of the lapses on the part of the Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari Police Station, the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, is directed to initiate appropriate departmental proceedings against the Inspector of Police and bring the same to a logical conclusion at the earliest. A report in this regard shall be submitted to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

18. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. 11.11.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No LS To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Kanniyakumari Police Station, Kanniyakumari District.

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

DR. P. MURUGAN, J. LS WP Crl.(MD) No. 6141 of 2026 11.11.2026