Madras High CourtWP Crl./785/2025dismissed

Manjula v. The Director General Of Police,

2025-09-10Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-09-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Manjula W/o. Sambath Kumar, No.6, Second Street, Parameshwaran Nagar, Aadambakkam, Chennai - 600088.

Appellant(s) Vs

1. The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Post Box No.601, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600004.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, No.132, Commissioner office Building, E.V.K.Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai - 600007.

1/6

3.The Inspector of Police, M3-Puzhal Police Station, Puzhal, Chennai - 600066.

4.The Additional Director General of Police - CBCID, CBCID Complex, No.24, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600008.

Respondent(s) PRAYER This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India Directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner representation dated 08.03.2025 to transfer the investigation from the third respondent i.e. the Inspector, M-3, Puzhal Police Station, in Crime No. 198/2024 to the fourth respondent i.e. CBCID.

For Appellant(s):

M/s.T.Jayaramaraj For Respondent:

M/s. R. Vinothraja, Govt. Advocate (crl.side) 2/6

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to transfer the investigation from the third respondent to the fourth respondent.

2. The petitioner is third party to the proceedings in Crime No.198 of 2023 registered by the third respondent police against one Stalin, for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, and 419 of IPC. The allegation in the complaint is that the said accused had created a false Identity Card and entered into the Puzhal Central Prison-II by impersonating himself as an Advocate.

3. The petitioner claims to be the mother in law of the accused, and asserts that her daughter has also been cheated, inasmuch as the accused misrepresented himself to be an advocate and married her daughter. On that ground, she seeks certain directions.

3/6

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has no locus standi and is in no manner connected with the present case.

5. This Court at a loss to understand as to how the present writ petition is maintainable. If at all the petitioner has any grievance against her son in law and if he has committed any offence, it is for the petitioner to prosecute him separately in accordance with law, but, not by seeking to interfere with the filing of the final report in the present case. In view of the above, I find no merit in this writ petition.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition (Crl.) stands dismissed. 10-09-2025 mrp 4/6

To 1.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Post Box No.601, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600004.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, No.132, Commissioner office Building, E.V.K.Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai - 600007.

3.The Inspector of Police, M3-Puzhal Police Station, Puzhal, Chennai - 600066.

4.The Additional Director General of Police - CBCID, CBCID Complex, No.24, Pantheon Road, Egmore, chennai - 600008.

5/6

N.SATHISH KUMAR J.

mrp 10-09-2025 6/6