← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/7716/2026closed

Y.Venkateswaralu v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

2026-04-22Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22-04-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR Y.Venkateswaralu Petitioner(s) Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by The Inspector of Police Tambaram Police Station, Tambaram, Chennai-600 045.

[Crime No.774 of 2023] Respondent(s) PRAYER This criminal original petition is preferred under section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking to direct the respondent to complete the investigation and file the final report/charge sheet in Crime No.774 of 2023 on the file of Respondent Police within a fixed time frame in accordance with law and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.G.V.Sridharan For Respondent(s):

Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Addl. Public Prosecutor Assisted By Ms.Harshana. T 1/5

ORDER

The petitioner has lodged a complaint to the respondent police and a case in crime no.774 of 2023 came to be registered for the offences under sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC against one Mr.Jayakumar. The said Jayakumar has filed an anticipatory bail petition before this court in Crl.O.P.No.23467 of 2023 and this court vide order dated 12.03.2024 had granted an anticipatory bail with certain conditions. According to the petitioner, the said Jayakumar had not complied with the conditions. Further, the respondent police has not taken any steps to complete the investigation and to file the final report. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel has submitted that the case has been registered in the year 2023 and even after the lapse of more than two years, the respondent police has not taken any steps to complete the investigation.

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, today, has submitted a status report filed by the respondent. On a perusal of the status report, it is seen that there is a dispute with regard to the execution of the power of attorney and thereafter, usurping the property of the defacto complainant. After registration of the FIR, the investigating officer had summoned one Pandi @ Pandi Ganesh on 25.11.2023, who had agreed to give Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.10 lakhs by way of 2/5

two cheques. Thereafter, section 41(A) of Cr.P.C notice was issued to the petitioner.

4.It is seen from the status report that on the complaint of the petitioner, the wife of said Pandi @ Pandi Ganesh has paid Rs.2 Lakhs to the petitioner through bank transaction and further assured to hand over the cheque but has not done so. Further there are several transactions that took place between the parties. The accused Jayakumar and Pandi @ Pandi Ganesh have to return the amount of Rs.24 lakhs to the defacto complainant and both of them did not come to the conclusion regarding the payment to the defacto complainant. Further, it is also seen that the address given at the time of preparing the power of attorney was also found to be a fake one. Further the said Pandi @ Pandi Ganesh died. From the available document evidence, it is found that there is no role to the alleged accused Jayakumar and therefore, the name of the said Jayakumar was deleted from the final report. As the said Pandi Ganesh who is the key man in the transaction died and the identity of the Manimegalai is also not known, the final report was filed and the case has been closed as undetected on 24.09.2025.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing of this petition and when the case was taken up for consideration on 26.03.2026, the respondent police has sent a notice to the petitioner informing about the closure of the case. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has sent a reply refuting 3/5

the reasons given by the respondent police. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted the closure report has been filed before the court concerned.

6.The statement of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is recorded. In view of the above, the petitioner shall file the protest petition before the concerned Magistrate court and the concerned Magistrate is directed to hear the petitioner and his objections and thereafter decide the case on its own merits and pass suitable orders in accordance with law. With the above directions, this criminal original petition is disposed of. No costs. 22-04-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes vvk To 1.The Inspector of Police Tambaram Police Station, Tambaram, Chennai.

Crime No.774 of 2023 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

4/5

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.

vvk CRL OP No. 7716 of 22-04-2026 5/5