Sumathi, v. The Commissioner Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR and W.P.M.P.Crl.No.369 of 2025 Sumathi ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Commissioner of Police, O/o. Commissioner of Police, Chennai.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Crime Branch, Chennai.
3. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai.
4. Selvapandian ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition (Criminal) is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned closure report issued by the third respondent dated 11.11.2024 and set aside the same and consequently direct respondents 1 to 3 to take necessary action against the fourth respondent based on the petitioner's complaint dated 14.08.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Navaneetharaja For R1 to R3 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor 1/5
O R D E R
The Writ Petition (Criminal) has been filed seeking to set aside the closure report dated 11.11.2024 issued by the third respondent and to direct respondents 1 to 3 to take action against the fourth respondent on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 14.08.2024. 2.
It is the case of the petitioner that an extent of 67.79 Sq.m. situated in Block No.65, Koyambedu Village, Aminjikarai Taluk, Chennai, belongs to the petitioner's father, K.K.Pandian, who was in possession and enjoyment of the property. On 25.12.2022, the father of the petitioner died, leaving behind the petitioner, the fourth respondent and four others as his legal heirs to his entire property. After the death of her father, the fourth respondent started dealing with the properties of their father and created records as if they were his individual property. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that the fourth respondent had forged a settlement deed in respect of the subject mentioned properties and managed to register the same with the help of officials from the registration department at the Anna Nagar Sub Registrar Office in Doc. Nos.3277/2018 and 3278/2018, dated 10.08.2018.
2/5
3.
The petitioner also produced a handwriting expert's report in this regard, which clearly indicates that the signature and thumb impression do not tally. However, the respondent Police has closed the petitioner's complaint. Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed. 4.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the First Information Report ought to have been registered on the basis of the documents and she has also obtained an opinion from the private experts supporting her allegations.
5.
Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.
In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that, though the respondent Police have closed the complaint, the petitioner is not without a remedy. She can file a private complaint and seek a forensic examination before the Judicial Magistrate. On filing of such private complaint, the learned Magistrate may decide the case based on the facts brought on record and may take cognizance and proceed in accordance with law. 7.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition (Criminal) stands disposed of with above directions. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous 3/5
petition is closed.
17.09.2025 ham To
1. The Commissioner of Police, O/o. Commissioner of Police, Chennai.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Crime Branch, Chennai.
3. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
4/5
N. SATHISH KUMAR , J.
ham and W.P.M.P.Crl.No.369 of 2025 17.09.2025 5/5