← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/9049/2026allowed

Dhatchanamoorthy v. The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep By The Superintendent Of Police

2026-06-08Honourable Mr Justice R.Vijayakumar6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.06.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR Crl.OP.(MD)No.9049 of 2026 Dhatchanamoorthy

...Petitioner

Vs

1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Superintendent of Police, O/o.the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.

2. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o.the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar District.

3. State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, DCB, Virudhunagar District.

4. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Commissioner of Police, O/o.The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City and District.

5. State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, CCB - I, Coimbatore City and District.

6. Usharani

7. Ravichandran 1/6

8. Saravanan

9. Gowrisankar

...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings (Closure Report) of the 2nd respondent made in Na.Ka.No.C.No.02/DCB/DSP/VNR/2026, dated 06.03.2026 and to set aside the same by allowing this criminal original petition and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to take appropriate legal action on the complaint of the petitioner dated 31.12.2025. For Petitioner : M/s.M.Thirunavukkarasu For Respondents : M/s.P.Samuel Gunasingh Counsel for State of TN(crl.side) for R1 to R5

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the defacto complainant seeking to quash the order of the second respondent dated 06.03.2026, wherein the complaint lodged the petitioner has been closed after advising the petitioner to lodge a complaint before the jurisdictional police.

2. The petitioner herein alleging job rocketing had initially lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore, which was returned on 05.07.2023, with a direction to approach the jurisdictional police of Virudhunagar. Thereafter, the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Virudhunagar, alleging job rocketing and also 2/6

contending that fake appointment orders have been issued as if those orders have been drafted by the Public Works Department. This complaint has been closed under the impugned order on the ground that the entire transaction has taken place within the jurisdiction of Coimbatore and therefore, such a complaint cannot be entertained. Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed.

3. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, a portion of the amount has been transferred from SBI branch of Srivilliputhur and therefore, the jurisdiction would lie before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Virudhunagar. He further contended that when serious allegations are made in the complaint, the second respondent ought to have registered FIR.

4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for State of TN(crl.side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 5, submitted that the first complaint lodged before the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore, did not contain any averments that fake appointment orders have been issued and since it was only a money transaction, the petitioner was directed to approach the jurisdictional police in Virudhunagar. He further pointed out that the entire transaction has taken place only within the jurisdiction of Coimbatore Police. 3/6

5. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. The perusal of the complaint lodged by the petitioner would clearly indicate that the private respondents who are the proposed accused persons are residing at Coimbatore. The petitioner is said to have personally met them at Coimbatore and handed over cash to them. Only a small portion of the amount has been transferred to the bank account from Srivilliputhur Branch of SBI. In such circumstances, Coimbatore police have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. However, the second respondent ought not to have closed the complaint on the ground that they do not have any jurisdiction.

7. Under the BNSS, statutory recognition has been granted to "zero" FIR as contemplated under Section 173 of BNSS. Even assuming that the second respondent does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, they should have registered "zero" FIR and thereafter, transferred the same to the jurisdictional police. In such circumstances, the order impugned in the petition is hereby set aside and the second respondent is directed to register 'zero' FIR in view of the disclosure of cognizable offences and thereafter, transfer the same to the 4th respondent herein for proceeding in accordance with the law. 4/6

8. With the above said observations, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed to the extent as stated above. 08.06.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR To

1. The Superintendent of Police, O/o.the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o.the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar District.

3. The Inspector of Police, DCB, Virudhunagar District.

4. The Commissioner of Police, O/o.The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City and District.

5. The Inspector of Police, CCB - I, Coimbatore City and District.

Copy to:- The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.

RJR Crl.OP.(MD)No.9049 of 2026 08.06.2026 6/6