Saridha v. The Director General Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.04.2026 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Saridha .. Petitioner

Versus

1. The Director General of Police, No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City Police, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

3. R.Suresh .. Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 27.03.2025 take necessary action against the 3rd respondent in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Anandaraj For Respondents : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor, for RR-1 and 2 1/5

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 27.03.2026 and to take necessary action against the third respondent in accordance with law.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she sent a complaint on 27.03.2025 to the respondent Police making specific allegations against the third respondent that the third respondent had informed that he was unmarried and promised to marry the petitioner. Since, both started living together as husband and wife. She also became pregnant and later, on coming to know about the same, the third respondent started avoiding the petitioner. He had also taken money from the petitioner on various dates totalling to Rs.4,00,000/-. Now, the said Suresh is unable to be reached and the money has also not been paid. She also came to know that the third respondent had married to another girl and living with his wife in the Police Quarters, Pattinapakkam. When the petitioner questioned the third respondent, he threatened her and chased her away. Hence, the complaint is lodged, but, no action has been taken. In support of her contention, the petitioner also produced some photographs showing that she married the 2/5

third respondent.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the complaint of the petitioner was received by the post on 27.03.2025. Thereafter, followed by another complaint on 13.12.2025, an enquiry was conducted by the Inspector of Police (Crimes), Adambakkam Police Station and a notice was sent to the petitioner in the address given. Three notices were sent on 19.01.2026, 16.01.2026 and 21.01.2026. Despite the same, she had failed to appear and participated in the enquiry. Hence, in the enquiry, the statement of the third respondent was recorded.

4. It is seen that the petitioner has been making false claim as she was deceived and had a relationship with the third respondent. Further, the third respondent had denied about receipt of any money from the petitioner and the petitioner, being friendly with the him, later, taking advantage of the same, had been making unreasonable demand which was resisted and thereafter, false complaints have been lodged. Recording the same, the enquiry officer had closed the enquiry.

3/5

5. In view of the above, this Court finds that the petitioner, after the complaint, had not participated in the enquiry and now, filed this petition as no action has been taken. Recording the same, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 08.04.2026 Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order : yes/no grs To

1. The Director General of Police, No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City Police, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

4/5

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

grs 08.04.2026 5/5