G.Rukmani v. The District Superintendent Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22-01-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA G.Rukmani ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The District Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.

2. The Inspector of Police, Thiruvenkadu Police Station, Thiruvenkadu, Mayiladuthurai District.

3. The Tashildar, Sirkali Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District.

4. The Head Surveyor, Office of Tahsildar, Sirkali Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District.

5. T.Senthamil Selvi

6. Rasika

7. Kudiarasi ..Respondent(s) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus by directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to desist the action entering petitioner property comprised in survey No.144/10 new survey no.444/14, 444/15,444/16, 444/17, 444/20 and 444/21 admeasuring 4178 sq.mtr ie., 104 cents of land and with Madras tile roof bearing D.No.5/25 with EB connection No.065470022265 as the matter are pending before competent civil court in O.S.No.220 of 2025 on the file Sub-Court at Sirkali and __________Page 1 of 4

petitioner right over the property as title owner of the property to be decided only competent civil courts and 1st and 2nd respondents not to venture in the civil dispute any manner to be decided by the competent civil courts and accordingly 1st and 2nd respondents not to harass or threaten the petitioner further.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.P.Veeraraghavan For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Santhosh, Government Advocate (crl.side) for R1 to R4

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the second respondent police not to harass or threaten the petitioner. 2.

When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that based on the complaint given by one Rajendran, an enquiry was conducted by the second respondent in C.S.R.No.444 of 2025. He further submitted that the petitioner was called only for the purpose of enquiry and was not harassed during the process. However, the complaint has now been closed, as the dispute between the parties was found to be civil in nature.

__________Page 2 of 4

3.

Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), this Writ Petition is closed. 22-01-2026 vkr Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order To

1. The District Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.

2. The Inspector of Police, Thiruvenkadu Police Station, Thiruvenkadu, Mayiladuthurai District.

3. The Tashildar, Sirkali Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District.

4. The Head Surveyor, Office of Tahsildar, Sirkali Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. __________Page 3 of 4

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

vkr 22-01-2026 __________Page 4 of 4