S.Narayanan v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and W.M.P.(MD)No.15234 of 2024 S.Narayanan
...Petitioner
Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
3.The Inspector of Police, Vathirairuppu Police Station, Vathirairuppu, Virudhunagar District.
4.The Assistant Engineer, O/o. Assistant Engineer TANGEDCO, Vathirairuppu, Virudhunagar District.
5.G.Sankaranarayanan 6.R.Rathishkumar 7.K.Padmavathi 1/6
8.Konaiyandi 9.Thirupathi
...Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition has been filed under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate legal action against the respondents 5 to 9 under Exorbitant Interest Act as well as illegal land grabbing based on the petitioner's complaint dated 10.07.2024 within the time that may be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Vaigunth For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor For R-5 to R-9 : Mr.A.Sivaji
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Mandamus to the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate legal action against the respondents 5 to 9 under Exorbitant Interest Act as well as illegal land grabbing based on the petitioner's complaint dated 10.07.2024.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents 8 and 9 are money lenders; that the petitioner had obtained loan from the respondents 8 and 9 and 2/6
in order to secure the loan, they had forced the petitioner to execute a sale deed in favour of the respondents 5 to 7 and 9; that even after the repayment of money, the respondents 5 to 9 refused to cancel the sale deed and are demanding exorbitant interest; and hence, action should be taken.
3. When this matter was taken up earlier, this Court had directed the Superintendent of Police to file a report on the allegations made by the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police has now filed a report stating that the sale deed in favour of the respondents 5 to 7 and 9 was pursuant to a mortgage deed and an unregistered sale agreement; that therefore, the respondents 8 and 9 had obtained sale deed pursuant to a genuine transaction; that they had not collected any exorbitant interest or grabbed the property of the petitioner; and that the allegations only suggest a civil dispute.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 9 would submit that they had given a complaint on 09.07.2024 against the petitioner for the offence of criminal intimidation and that only as a counter blast, the petitioner is seeking to take action against them.
3/6
5. Admittedly, there is a registered sale deed in favour of the respondents 5 to 7 and 9. The question as to whether this sale deed has been executed under threat cannot be gone into by the respondent Police. In any case, the Superintendent of Police, on the directions issued by this Court, has filed a report stating that the transaction is genuine and that there is no evidence for demand of exorbitant interest or land grabbing. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there cannot be any direction as prayed for by the petitioner. If the petitioner is of the view that the sale deed was obtained under coercion or threat, it is needless to say that the remedy available for him is to approach the Civil Court.
6. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
21.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Lm 4/6
To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
3.The Inspector of Police, Vathirairuppu Police Station, Vathirairuppu, Virudhunagar District.
5/6
SUNDER MOHAN , J.
Lm 21.11.2025 6/6