A.Venkatesan v. The Superintendent Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR A.Venkatesan ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Superintendent of Police, Erode - 638 001.
2. Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhavani, Erode - 638 301.
3. State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Chithode Police Station, Erode District.
4. C.Mohan Branch Manager, CSB-Bank Limited, 1st Floor Samy Complex Mettur Main Road, Bhavani, Erode 638 301.
..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ Petition Criminal filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing 1st to 3rd respondents to completion of the enquiry and take a decision regarding the further course of action based upon the petitioner's representation on 06.03.2026 and the same dispose the enquiry expeditiously as possible according with law and pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Munuraj G For Respondent(s):
Mr. Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 to R3
ORDER
This Writ Petition (Criminal) has been filed, seeking a direction to direct the respondents 1 to 3 for completion of the enquiry and take a decision regarding the further course of action based on the petitioner's representation dated 06.03.2026, and to conclude the enquiry as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is working as a Senior Engineer (Tower maintenance) in Airtel Office. He got married to Kalpana in the year 2016 and they have two children. His wife is also working as Operations Manager in CSB Bank Limited, Bhavani Branch. In October, 2025, the 4th respondent, Mohan, who is the Manager of CSB Bank, announced a scheme to provide a house site at a low price based on the qualifications of bank employees. Believing the same, the petitioner and his wife had paid a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- in cash to the 4th respondent, who assured them that a house site would be alloted under the said scheme. While so, some dispute arose between the petitioner and his wife. The petitioner's wife lodged a complaint in C.S.R.No.69 of 2026 on 10.02.2026, which was subsequently closed. The petitioner also lodged a complaint in C.S.R.No.70 of 2026, however, according
to him, no action was taken on the said complaint. Hence, the present petition. 2.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 4th respondent/Mohan, who is a colleague of the petitioner's wife informed them that the property in question would be brought for auction and the same could be purchased. In order to purchase the said property, the petitioner and his wife jointly paid certain amounts to the 4th respondent. Thereafter, dispute arose between the petitioner and his wife, and subsequently, she left the matrimonial home. When the petitioner questioned the 4th respondent regarding the property, he was allegedly assaulted him and hence, a complaint came to be registered. However, no effective action was taken. Therefore, the petitioner also made a representation to respondents 1 to 3, seeking completion of the enquiry and appropriate action, but the same has not been considered till date. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that, based on the petitioner's complaint in C.S.R.No.70 of 2026, an enquiry was conducted. The petitioner was called, and his statement was recorded and the counter-petitioner was also enquired. Upon enquiry, it was found that the issue is a matrimonial dispute, which has been unnecessarily magnified, and that the 4th respondent, being a co-employee of the petitioner's wife, has been unnecessarily implicated. Therefore, it was
concluded that no further action was required, and the complaint in C.S.R.No.70 of 2026 was closed on 20.02.2026.
4. He further submitted that the attempts were made to serve the closure intimation to the petitioner, however, the petitioner has evaded the service. Subsequently, on 02.04.2024, an intimation has been sent to the petitioner through registered post. The petitioner has now been informed about the closure of the compliant, and is at liberty to approach the Inspector of Police, Chithode to collect the closure intimation report, which will be furnished to him.
5. Considering the above submission made by the learned counsel on either side, and without going into the merits of the case, this Court directs the petitioner to approach the Inspector of Police, Chithode, to collect the closure intimation report along with the statements and the other relevant documents pertaining to the case, if aggrieved, to file protest petition before the concerned Police and to superior Police Officer. Thereafter, if the petitioner feels denial of justice, shall approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate with appropriate petition, who shall consider the petitioner's grievance, in accordance with law.
6. With the above observation and direction, this Writ Petition (Criminal) is disposed of.
08-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order jd To
1. The Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Superintendent of Police, Erode - 638 001.
2. Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhavani, Erode - 638 301.
3. The Inspector of Police, Chithode Police Station, Erode District.
4. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
jd 08-04-2026