← Library
Madras High CourtCONT P(MD)/2283/2025closed

Gajendran v. Booma

2025-10-13Honourable Mr Justice B.Pugalendhi5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 13.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10049 of 2024 Gajendran ... Petitioner versus Booma The Sub Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station, Madurai District.

... Respondent Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, to punish the respondent herein for her willful disobedience to the order of this Court made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10049 of 2024 dated 24.07.2024.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jeyakumar For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (Crl. side)

ORDER

The petitioner, a victim, has lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station, in the year 2022 and the 1/5

same was registered in Cr.No.212 of 2022 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 420 and 506(1) IPC.

2. The petitioner, with a grievance that there was no investigation on his complaint, has filed a petition before this Court in Crl.O.P. (MD)No.10049 of 2024, seeking a direction to the respondent police to complete the investigation within a stipulated time. After hearing the respondent, this Court, by its order dated 24.07.2024, disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondent to complete the investigation within a period of two months. The relevant portion of the order is extracted as under:

4. In view of the above, this Court feels that in all cases, the respondent Police cannot expect the accused to be available for conducting investigation, they have to collect the materials whether the accused has indulged in the offence of job racketing as projected by the petitioner, from the witnesses, if any produced by the petitioner. It appears that the accused was also terminated from service. The reasons for the termination shall also be ascertained by the investigation agency. The respondent police shall file a final report within a period of two months, 2/5

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

3. Even thereafter, the respondent police has not completed the investigation in Crime No.212 of 2022. Therefore, the petitioner has issued a contempt notice on 11.07.2025 and also filed this contempt petition before this Court on 24.07.2025.

4. In the contempt petition, the respondent has taken a stand that investigation has been completed and final report has also been filed.

5. Being not satisfied with the response made by the respondent, this Court, by order dated 06.10.2025, directed the respondent to offer her explanations for the delay in completing the investigation in Cr.No. 212 of 2022 even after the orders of this Court. Pursuant to the same, the investigation officer has filed an affidavit claiming that she joined duty as Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station, on 01.08.2024 and there was a mediation process for a period of three months and the petitioner has also gone to Malaysia in the month of June 2025. Therefore, mediation could not be completed and there is a delay in filing the final 3/5

report.

6. Being satisfied with the explanation offered by the respondent, this Contempt Petition is closed.

13.10.2025 ogy NCC : Yes / No.

Index : Yes . No.

Internet: Yes / No.

To Booma The Sub Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station, Madurai District.

4/5

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

ogy 13.10.2025 5/5