Madras High CourtWP Crl.(MD)/494/2026disposed of

M.Vijaya Rani v. The Superintendent Of Police,

2026-02-03Honourable Mrs Justice S.Srimathy5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 03/02/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY M.Vijaya Rani ... Petitioners Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police,, Superintendent Office, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District..

2. The Sub Inspector of Police,, District Crime Branch, District Police Office Campus, Subramaniyapuram, Tiruchirappalli District..

3. The Inspector of Police,, All Women Police Station, Thiruverumbur, Tiruchirappalli District..

4. Suguna @ Sumathi ... Respondents 1/5

PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to take appropriate action on the petitioners complaint against the 2nd and 3rd respondents and further directing the 2nd respondent C.No. 554/DSP/DCB/TRI/2025 (Summon) dt. 11.11.2025) and 3rd respondent not to harass or interfere with the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj, Advocate.

For Respondents 1 and 3 : Mr.A.S. Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuing a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to take appropriate action on the petitioner's complaint against the 2nd and 3rd respondents and further directing the 2nd respondent in connection with C.No. 554/DSP/DCB/TRI/2025 (Summon) dated 11.11.2025 and the 3rd respondent not to harass or interfere with the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.

2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that, based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the petitioner was issued with a summons to appear before the authority concerned and 2/5

attend the enquiry. After receipt of the said summons, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that there was a money transaction between the 4th respondent and the petitioner. According to the complaint, the petitioner has received a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-, whereas according to the petitioner, he has received only a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. Since the dispute pertains to a money transaction and is civil in nature, the petitioner seeks a direction that he should not be harassed. As the issue appears to be a money transaction, the respondent shall take into consideration the guidelines laid down in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh case and follow the directions stated therein. If the dispute is found to be civil in nature, the respondent may direct the parties to seek appropriate civil remedies, and if any criminal offence is made out, appropriate proceedings may be initiated in accordance with law.

3/5

4. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. 03.02.2026 TRP Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TO

1. The Superintendent of Police,, Superintendent Office, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District..

2. The Superintendent of Police,, Superintendent Office, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District..

3. The Sub Inspector of Police,, District Crime Branch, District Police Office Campus, Subramaniyapuram, Tiruchirappalli District..

4. The Inspector of Police,, All Women Police Station, Thiruverumbur, Tiruchirappalli District..

4/5

S.SRIMATHY,J TRP

ORDER

IN WP CRL.(MD) No.494 of 2026 Date : 03/02/2026 5/5