V.Alangaravel v. The Superintendent Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 01/06/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI V.Alangaravel ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District.
2. The Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti East Police Station, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.
3. The Manager, Akshayam Gold Pvt Ltd., Perumal Nagar Complex, Kovilpatti Main Road Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.
... Respondents PRAYER :- To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.12.2025 and to conduct a fair and impartial enquiry.
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Kumar, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr.A.Arun Arockia samy for R1 and R2 Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/6
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.12.2025 and to conduct a fair and impartial enquiry.
2. Considering the fact that no adverse order is going to be passed as against the third respondent in this writ petition, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had pledged his gold jewellery with the third respondent bank on 15.02.2022 under Loan No. 1158 to a tune of Rs.6,82,500/- and Rs.8,52,500/- respectively. However, the third respondent, without informing the petitioner, had melted the petitioner's jewelry on the ground that the loan amount had exceeded the value of the jewelry and no sufficient repayment had been made. In this regard, the petitioner has given a representation to the first respondent on 20.12.2025 and on 02.01.2026. The same is not considered. Hence this Writ Petition. 2/6
4. The learned Government Advocate categorically contended that the second respondent had already enquired the matter and the representatives of the third respondent as well as the petitioner had appeared before the second respondent police station. It has come clear in the enquiry that the petitioner had defaulted his jewelry loan and only thereafter, the 3rd respondent had melted his jewelry. However, he sought for a dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard either sides and carefully perused the materials available on record.
6. The materials placed before me would reveal that the third respondent bank had issued auction notice to the petitioner four times. Pursuant to which, the petitioner had not responded to the same and had not paid the loan amount in time. Under certain circumstances, the further action warranted by the third respondent is to conduct auction of the said jewellery in accordance with law. Having not done so, the third respondent had illegally melted the petitioner's gold jewellery. Hence, I find some material in the representation made by the petitioner. 3/6
7. In view of the same, though the learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent police, submitted that the matter has already been closed, the second respondent police is directed to reopen the matter and put the petitioner as well as the third respondent on notice under Section 64 of BNSS and conduct a discreet enquiry on what grounds the third respondent had melted the petitioner's gold jewellery and take necessary action in accordance with law. The first respondent is directed to monitor the enquiry being conducted by the second respondent from time to time and the second respondenti s directed to appraise the progress of the investigation to the first respondent on every Friday.
8. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. 01.06.2026 NCC : yes / no Index : yes / no pnn 4/6
To
1. The Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District..
2. The Inspector of Police,, Kovilpatti East Police Station, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District..
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J pnn
ORDER
IN WP CRL.(MD) No.2664 of 2026 Date : 01/06/2026 6/6