Madras High CourtWP Crl.(MD)/396/2026disposed of

Chinnasamy v. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Dcb, Karur,

2026-01-27Honourable Mrs Justice S.Srimathy4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 27/01/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Chinnasamy ... Petitioner Vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Dcb, Karur,, Karur District.

... Respondent PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorified Mandamus, calling for records in the impugned proceedings dt. 23.12.2025 on the file of the Respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to restore the complaint, and register FIR.

For Petitioner : Mr.N. Anantha Padmanabhan Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Sivasubramanian For Respondent : Mr.A.,S. Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to call for records in the impugned proceedings dt. 23.12.2025 on the file of the Respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to restore the 1/4

complaint, and register FIR.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent.

3. The petitioner had preferred a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police (L & O). After enquiry, it was stated that a cognizable offence was made out. Since the amount involved was huge, accordingly, the Deputy Superintendent of Police transferred the case to the District Crime Branch. After enquiry, the District Crime Branch closed the complaint stating that it was a civil dispute.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that he approached the alleged accused for obtaining a loan to the tune of Rupees One Hundred and Fifty Four Crores, for which the accused demanded a sum of Rs.1,76,00,000/- as commission / processing fee. The petitioner paid the said amount. However, the alleged accused did not process the loan for Rupees One Hundred and Fifty Four Crores. Hence, the complaint was lodged.

2/4

5. The accused stated that there was a sale agreement for the said amount of Rs.1,76,00,000/-. However, the petitioner submitted that only an unregistered sale agreement was executed to safeguard the amount of Rs.1,76,00,000/- paid by him and, therefore, the same cannot be treated as a sale transaction.

6. Therefore, the respondent is directed to conduct a proper enquiry, focusing on whether there was an alleged agreement for processing loan to the tune of Rupees One Hundred and Fifty Four Crores, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the respondent stands quashed. 27.01.2026 TRP Index : Yes/ No Internet: Yes / No.

3/4

S.SRIMATHY,J TRP TO The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Dcb, Karur,, Karur District..

ORDER

IN WP CRL.(MD) No.396 of 2026 Date : 27/01/2026 4/4