Madras High CourtCRL OP/7045/2026disposed of

K.Manokaran v. The Superintendent Of Police

2026-06-15Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR K.Manokaran S/o Kanniyappan, No.3/55, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Sumaithangi Mathura, Bagaveli Post, Kuppathumottur Vilage, Walaja Taluk, Ranipet District.

..Petitioner Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police Ranipet District.

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

Crime No.551 of 2025.

..Respondents To Transfer the investigation in Crime No.551 of 2025 on the file of Ranipet Police Station under section 194 of the BNS 2023, from the respondent police to any independent agency.

For Petitioner :

Mr.L.Ram Kumar For Respondents :

Mr.R. Rajasekaran, Government Advocate for R1 & R2

ORDER

The petitioner, aggrieved against the unnatural death of his second son, lodged a complaint, on which the case in crime No.551 of 2025 has been registered for the offence under Section 194 of BNSS.

2. The gist of the complaint is that the petitioner's second son, Gopi, had married one Ramya on 06.11.2016. For the past one year, they had differences of opinion as they had no issues, and the said Ramya was residing in her parents' house. On 29.12.2025, at about 4.18 pm, Ramya's father informed the petitioner that his son was in their house and was causing obstructions. He further informed that if the petitioner did not remove his son from his premises, he would inform the police. Consequently, the petitioner sent his elder son to the daughter-in-laws house, and thereafter, he himself went there. As the door was not opened, it was forced open and found the petitioner's son was found hanging with the use of a saree. He further submitted that the petitioner's son had suffered ligature injuries around the neck.

The post-mortem report also records that the cause was most probably suicidal. Hence, raising doubt about his daughter-in-law Ramya, her father Ethiraj, her mother Sargunam, and other relatives namely, Prabavathy and Babu, the petitioner gave a representation on 05.01.226. So far, no action has been taken. Hence, the petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submits that the case has been closed as further action dropped and a final opportunity notice has been served on 23.03.2026. It is further contended that FAD report has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate-V, Ranipet.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly opposed the same and contended that this petition has been filed on 10.03.2026. Thereafter, in this case, an FAD notice was served and the petitioner was called to the police station and forced to sign.

5. In view of the above, the petitioner is direction to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate-V, Ranipet and file a protest petition. The Inspector of Police, Ranipet is directed to serve a copy of the closure report along with the supporting documents.

6. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

15-06-2026 nl Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order To

1. The Superintendent of Police Ranipet District.

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

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

15-06-2026