V.Appadurai v. The District Superintendent Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-01-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
1. V.Appadurai, S/o.Veerappan, 70/2 789, Bharathidasan Street, Periyakuppam, Cudddalore, Tamil Nadu 608 801
2. V.Pandian, S/o.Vellaiyappan, 670, Murugan Kovil Street, Periyakuppam, Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu 608 801
3. M.Vetrivel, S/o.Munniyappan, 936, Kadarkarai Street, Periyakuppam, Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu 608 801
4. D.Veerathilagan, S/o.Dhandapani, Bharathidasan Street, Periyakuppam, Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu 608 801
5. A.Balasubramanian, S/o.Aarumugam, 22, Thiruvalluvar Nagar Street, Periyakuppam, Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu 608 801 Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The District Superintendent of Police, Office of the District Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore-01 2.The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch, Cuddalore - 01.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for the records culminating in the impugned communication of the 2nd Respondent dated 28.06.2025 bearing I.O.No.SPGP.No.3334/2025 in C.No.431/SPGB/DCB /CUD/25 and quash the same as illegal arbitrary and unsustainable in law. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.V.Adith Narayan For Respondents:
Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This writ petition (criminal) has been filed to quash the communication of the second respondent dated 28.06.2025 in I.O.No.SPGP.No.3334/2025 in C.No.431/SPGB/DCB /CUD/25.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner is the elected Village Head responsible for administration of village affairs, including oversight of accounts and public contributions. It is their further case that when the first petitioner reviewed the records, he had identified multiple financial discrepancies and the audit report also revealed misappropriation and unaccounted expenditure amounting to Rs.43,52,240/- during renovation and kumbabishekam of Sri Periyanayagi Amman Temple. In this regard, the first petitioner had given a complaint against one Vijayan and others in respect of
misappropriation of temple funds. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents, without conducting a proper investigation, had closed the complaint given by the first petitioner vide the impugned communication. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition.
3. When the matter is taken up today, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that the complaint given by the first petitioner was enquired and it was found that there was a dispute between the petitioners and the said Vijayan and therefore, the complaint given by the petitioners was closed directing the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum. It is his further contention that, as the petitioners have a remedy under section 175 of BNSS against the closure report, this writ petition has to be dismissed.
4. Finding force and merit in the aforesaid submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Writ Petition (Criminal) is closed with liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedy in accordance with law. 12-01-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes vrc
To 1.The District Superintendent of Police Office of the District Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore-01 2.The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch, Cuddalore - 01.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
vrc 12-01-2026