Piragalathan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.01.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Piragalathan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

2. The Inspector of Police, Mudukulathur Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner under the guise of warrant pending, based on the petitioner's representation dated 09.01.2026. For Petitioner : Mr.L.Prabakaran For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate 1/6

ORDER

The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondent police not to harass the petitioner under the guise of warrant pending, based on the petitioner's representation dated 09.01.2026.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a criminal case has been registered against one Mookuran, S/o. Ramachandran, and in connection therewith, a non-bailable warrant has been issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur. The respondent police, claiming that the petitioner is the said Mookuran, S/o. Ramachandran, have summoned him and are subjecting him to harassment. However, the petitioner would submit that his name is Piragalathan, S/o. Jeyaraman, and that he has no connection whatsoever with the said case. Hence, this petition has been filed.

3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police submitted that a murder case was registered in the year 2007 against 24 persons. The other accused faced a split-up trial and were acquitted. Since the petitioner had absconded and had also changed his name, a non-bailable warrant is still pending against him.

2/6

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.

5. It is pertinent to note that both the learned counsel placed photocopies of the Aadhaar Card and PAN Card for the perusal of this Court. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police also produced a copy of the Voter ID card dated 02.01.2020 pertaining to one Mookuran, S/o. Ramachandran.

6. It is interesting to find that the photographs produced by the learned Government Advocate and the petitioner matches to certain extent. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner claims that he is not Mookuran, S/o. Ramachandran, but he is Piragalathan. He further submits that the petitioner is willing to appear before the respondent police along with his father to clarify that he is a different individual and that his father's name is also different.

7. Recording the above, the petitioner is directed to appear before the second respondent police and produce all relevant documents to substantiate that he is not Mookuran, S/o. Ramachandran. The respondent police, upon 3/6

making due enquiry, shall ascertain the true identity of the petitioner and shall take appropriate action only after confirming whether he is indeed Mookuran, S/o. Ramachandran. If it is established that he is not Mookuran, the petitioner shall be set at free.

6. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

22.01.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Sm 4/6

TO:-

1. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

2. The Inspector of Police, Mudukulathur Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sm Order made in Dated 22.01.2026 6/6