M.Gopalakrishnan v. The Commissioner Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-06-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR M.Gopalakrishnan Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Commissioner of Police No. 132, EVK Sampath Road, Perimet, Vepery Park Town, Chennai , Tamil Nadu 600 007.
2. The Inspector of Police (Crime) V5 Thirumangalam PS, Chennai 600 101.
Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to issue a direction thereby direct the 2nd respondent to furnish with the copies of statements of persons and undertaking received based on the complaint submitted to the petitioner and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.V.Ramamurthy For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Rajasekaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to furnish copies of statements of witnesses and the undertakings received based on the complaint submitted to the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Park Town, Chennai on 31.10.2025, which was received and forwarded to the JCOPWEST for enquiry vide Ref.No.8744/COP/Visitors/2025.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen residing with his wife, daughter, son and sister in Anna Nagar West, Chennai. The petitioner came into contact with one Radhakrishnan and his son Vishalkrishnan and both are residing at Mangadu, Chennai 600 122, and they are relatives. The said Radhakrishnan is running a private Higher Secondary School in the name of Padma Subramaniam Bala Bavan, Mangadu, Chennai. In order to expand the school infrastructure and meeting certain financial requirements, Radhakrishnan approached the petitioner and his family members for financial assistance. Believing his representation, the petitioner advanced a total sum of Rs.55,00,000/- on various dates through deferred payments by issuing cheques in the name of his
son namely, Vishal Krishnan. It was agreed that interest would be paid at the rate of 24% per annum. Despite repeated demands, the said Radhakrishnan failed to repay the amount. However, towards the discharge of the loan amount, he had issued 15 cheques in favour of the petitioner, his wife, and his son.
4. The learned counsel further submitted that the Inspector of Police (Crime), V5 Thirumangalam PS, Chennai, conducted an enquiry on the petitioner's complaint. However, the petitioner was not aware of the outcome of the enquiry. Though the petitioner was called upon to appear before the police on several occasions, he was not apprised of the stage of the enquiry. Consequently, the petitioner submitted an application under the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005, seeking particulars relating to the enquiry. By a communication dated 25.02.2026, the information sought was denied on the ground that as per Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the particulars could not be furnished. The petitioner contends that no criminal case had been registered and therefore, the respondents could not have invoked the said provisions to deny the information sought.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the communication furnished under Right to Information Act was not in accordance
with law. It is contended that whenever information is denied under the RTI Act, the authority concerned is required to indicate the particulars of the Appellate Authority and the time limit for filing an appeal as mandated under Section 7(8) of the Act. However, in this case, no such particulars were furnished. Though the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the same came to be rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed period. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition, seeking direction to the 2nd respondent to furnish copies of statements of witnesses and the undertakings received based on the complaint submitted to the petitioner.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the Inspector of Police (Crime), V5 Thirumangalam PS, Chennai, had conducted an enquiry based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner in Ref.No. Ref.No.8744/COP/Visitors/2025.
8. In such circumstances, the 2nd respondent/Inspector of Police, V5 Thirumangalam PS, Chennai is directed to furnish such particulars and materials available in the enquiry records, so as to enable the petitioner to work
out the remedy in the manner known to law.
9. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
09-06-2026 Jd To
1. The Commissioner of Police No. 132, EVK Sampath Road, Perimet, Vepery Park Town, Chennai , Tamil Nadu 600 007.
2. The Inspector of Police (Crime) V5 Thirumangalam PS, Chennai 600 101.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.
jd 09-06-2026