V.Chandran v. The Commissioner Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI V.Chandran ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Commissioner of Police, O/o. the Commissioner of Police, Maduai City.

2. The Deputy Commissioner Of Police, O/o. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Maduai City.

3. The Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai City.

4. Sathiyakumar, Sub Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai City.

... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd Respondent to take necessary action as against the Respondent No.4 and conclude the enquiry by considering the Petitioner's complaint dated 27.05.2026 within the time frame as fixed by this Court.

1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed For Respondents : Mr.C.Susikumar (R1 to R3) Government Advocate (Crl.)

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the 3rd respondent to take necessary action as against the fourth respondent and conclude the enquiry by considering the petitioner's complaint dated 27.05.2026 within the time frame as fixed by this Court.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been cited as a mahazar witness in Crime No.153 of 2024, registered for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC. According to the petitioner, it was only upon receipt of summons from the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, in S.T.C. No.2216 of 2024 that he was shocked to learn that he had been shown as a mahazar witness in the case. The petitioner contended that he had never signed any document before the respondent police as a witness. Upon making enquiries, he came to know that the 4th respondent police had allegedly created documents as though the petitioner had affixed his signature as a mahazar witness. In this regard, the petitioner had lodged a complaint seeking appropriate action. However, since no action was 2/6

forthcoming on the said complaint, the present petition has been filed.

3. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the complaint preferred by the petitioner had been duly enquired into by the respondent police and, upon completion of the enquiry, the same was closed.

4. In response, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the closure referred to by the learned Government Advocate pertained to the complaint preferred by L.W.4, who had made a similar allegation, and that the complaint lodged by the petitioner has not been enquired into and still remains unattended.

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

6. In view of the above, the second respondent police is directed to conduct a discreet enquiry on the petitioner's complaint dated 27.05.2026 forthwith and conclude the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The first respondent is directed to monitor the investigation conducted by the second respondent. 3/6

7. With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. 22.06.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No sm 4/6

TO:-

1. The Commissioner of Police, O/o. the Commissioner of Police, Maduai City.

2. The Deputy Commissioner Of Police, O/o. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Maduai City.

3. The Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai City.

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

5/6

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sm Order made in Dated 22.06.2026 6/6