A.Kalyanasundaram v. Anandharaj

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 11.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI in W.P.Crl.(MD)No.860 of 2025 A.Kalyanasundaram ... Petitioner Vs

1. Thiru.Anandharaj, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samayanallur Sub Division, Madurai District.

2. Tmt. Valarmathi, Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, Madurai District.

... Respondents Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the contemnors for their deliberate disobedience and violation of the order of this Court dated 06.08.2025 passed in W.P.Crl. (MD)No.860 of 2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Kannappan For Respondents : Mr.Abul Kalam Azad, Government Advocate (Crl. side) 1/4

ORDER

The petitioner, with a grievance that his complaint dated 04.01.2025 has not been enquired, has filed a writ petition in W.P.Crl. (MD)No.860 of 2025.

2. During the course of hearing, the respondents have taken a stand that the complaint of the petitioner has been enquired and the same was closed. Recording the said submission, the writ petition in W.P.Crl. (MD)No.860 of 2025 was closed on 06.08.2025, with a direction to the 2nd respondent to furnish the closure report to the petitioner. However, the closure report has not been furnished. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this contempt petition.

3. When this contempt petition is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Crl side) has produced the closure report before this Court and also furnished to the petitioner.

4. In all fairness, the 2nd respondent ought to have furnished the closure report to the petitioner in time. If the 2nd respondent had 2/4

furnished the closure report to the petitioner as directed by this Court, then, this unnecessary litigation would have been avoided.

5. Considering the attitude of the 2nd respondent, this Court is inclined to impose certain cost on the 2nd respondent for not complying with the order of this Court, by not furnishing the closure report. However, considering the career of the 2nd respondent, this Court cautions the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent must realize that she is working as a public servant and she is answerable to the complainants, who have lodged the complaint before her.

6. Accordingly, this Contempt Petition is closed. 11.02.2026 ogy Index : Yes / No.

Internet : Yes / No.

NCC : Yes / No.

3/4

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

ogy To

1. Thiru.Anandharaj, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samayanallur Sub Division, Madurai District.

2. Tmt. Valarmathi, Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, Madurai District.

11.02.2026 4/4