Ganesan v. State Of Tamil Nadu,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.06.2026

CORAM:

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

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

3. Jesunithi

4. Balamurugan ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the respondents No. 3 and 4 by conducting an enquiry based on the petitioner's representation dated 01.12.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Asok Kumar Ram For Respondents : Mr.D.Rajaboopathy (R1 & R2) Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) Mr.M.Mohammed Ayyadurai (R3 & R4) 1/6

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the respondents 3 and 4 by conducting an enquiry based on the petitioner's representation dated 01.12.2025.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents 3 and 4 had defrauded the petitioner to a tune of Rs.16,43,000/- on the guise of getting a job. It was further submitted that, despite a complaint having been lodged before the second respondent police in this regard, no effective action was taken. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police submitted that notices were issued to both the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4, pursuant to which a detailed enquiry was conducted. It was further submitted that the parties had amicably resolved their disputes and had given written undertakings before the second respondent police recording the settlement of their disputes.

2/6

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner categorically contended that not even a single penny has been paid or settled by respondents 3 and 4 thus far.

5. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the private respondents had already paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards settlement and that they are prepared to produce documents to substantiate the same.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either sides and carefully perused the materials placed before this Court.

7. This is a clear case of job racketing, where the petitioner has been defrauded on the guise of fetching a job for him by the 3rd and 4th respondents. The second respondent police is directed to reopen the case of the petitioner, based on the petitioner's representation dated 01.12.2025 and conduct a discreet enquiry by putting the petitioner as well as the 3rd and 4th respondents on notice under Section 64 BNSS and conclude the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent is directed to monitor the investigation being conducted by the second respondent. Further, 3/6

the second respondent is also directed to apprise the progress of the investigation to the first respondent on every Friday.

8. This writ petition is disposed with the above directions. 02.06.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No sm 4/6

TO:-

1. The Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

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

5/6

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sm Order made in Dated 02.06.2026 6/6