M.Mounraj 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 M.Mounraj ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District.

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

... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to initiate action on the basis of the complaint in CSR No. 263 of 2026 in accordance with the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lalitha Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Malaikani For Respondents : Mr.D.Rajaboopathy Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) 1/6

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the second respondent to initiate action on the basis of the complaint in CSR No. 263 of 2026 in accordance with the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lalitha Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner categorically contended that the petitioner's grandfather, late Madasamy, passed away on 05.09.1995. However, a Power of Attorney dated 12.02.1996 was subsequently registered as if it had been executed by the deceased in favour of one K. Chandirasekar. According to the petitioner, the said document is a forged and fabricated instrument, as it purports to have been executed after the death of his grandfather. In this regard, the petitioner lodged a complaint, and a CSR was also issued. However, no effective action has been taken on the complaint. Aggrieved by the inaction of the authorities, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

2/6

3. The learned Government Advocate, on instructions, submitted that a discreet enquiry had been conducted into the complaint and, upon such enquiry, the matter was closed with an observation that the parties may work out their remedies before the competent Civil Court, if so advised.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either sides and carefully perused the materials available on record.

5. A careful perusal of the closure report reveals that the respondent police have unnecessarily interfered in the matter by attempting to give a civil colour to a criminal act, namely, the registration of a Power of Attorney as if executed by the petitioner's late grandfather, after his death, in favour of one K. Chandirasekar. I don't find any iota of material in the investigation or enquiry conducted by the respondent police as to this particular aspect.

6. In view of the above, the respondent police are directed to reopen the matter, issue notices to all necessary parties under Section 64 BNSS, including the petitioner, conduct a discrete enquiry, and take necessary action in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

3/6

7. With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. 01.06.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No sm 4/6

TO:-

1. The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District.

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

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

5/6

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sm Order made in Dated 01.06.2026 6/6