Innasimuthu v. The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep. By The Superintendent Of Police, Virudhunagar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.02.2026

CORAM

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

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.

3.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Elayirampannai Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

4.Balasubramanian 5.Jothiraj 6.Udhayakumar ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, directing the respondents 1 and 3, particularly the 1st respondent 1/6

to take appropriate legal action on the petitioner's complaint dated 20.01.2026 in accordance with law of BNSS 2023. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugappan For R1 - R3 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

ORDER

Seeking to direct the 1st and 2nd respondent police to take appropriate action against the 4th to 6th respondents based on the petitioner's complaint dated 20.01.2026, this criminal original petition is filed.

2. Since no adverse order is passed against the private respondents, notice to the private respondents is dispensed with.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the name of tracing his son, the respondents 4 to 6 respondents had frequented to the petitioner's house and they are subjecting the petitioner to untold harassment and hence, this petition. 2/6

4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) categorically contended that there is no question of harassment at all. On the basis of the secret information received that the petitioner and his son were selling Government liquor illegally, the respondent police have required them to appear for enquiry. Having refused to appear for enquiry and having refused to co-operate with the respondent police for fair investigation, the petitioner has come before this Court with this frivolous petition that the respondent police had called the petitioner by caste name. Hence, he sought for dismissal of this petition.

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

6. It has become a style and fashion of foisting frivolous petitions that the police officials are calling persons with caste names in recent times. This is such a similar petition filed before this court. Having known the repercussions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, I do not find that any police 3/6

officer will dare to call any human being by caste names. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they have not involved in any kind of selling of liquor, considering the nature of the allegation against the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to duly cooperate with the ongoing inquiry initiated by the 3rd respondent police. However, it is made clear that the 3rd respondent police should call the petitioner or his son for enquiry only on issuance of summon under Section 64 BNSS. It is made clear that the petitioner should cooperate with the 3rd respondent police on receipt of summons in this regard. It is also made clear that the 3rd respondent police should be cautious enough that the petitioner should not be harmed physically or in any manner, wrecking vengeance upon the filing of this petition as against respondents 4 to 6.

7. With the above directions, this criminal original petition stands disposed of.

25.02.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No gbg 4/6

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Elayirampannai Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

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

5/6

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

gbg 25.02.2026 6/6