Saravanakumar v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P(MD)Nos.28438 and 28669 of 2023 Saravanakumar

...Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.28438 / 2023

Ranjith @ Ranjithkumar

...Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.28669 / 2023

Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. through its Secretary, (Home Department), Fort St. George, Chennai.

2.The District Collector, 3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, 4.The Superintendent of Police, 5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi Sub Division, 6.The Inspector of Police, 1/5

7.Saravanan, The Inspector of Police, ... Respondents in both the W.Ps.

PRAYER IN BOTH THE W.Ps.:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 6 to pay a reasonable compensation to the petitioners for the illegal deprivation of their life and liberty and for the torture undergone by the act of the seventh respondent in abuse of his power on the basis of the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police dated 30.11.2022.

For Petitioners in both the W.Ps.: Mr.B.Mahendrarajan For R1 and R2 in W.P.(MD)No.28438 / 2023 : Mr.K.Balasubramani Special Government Pleader For R1 and R2 in W.P.(MD)No.28669 / 2023 : Mrs.K.Malathi Additional Government Pleader For R3 to R6 in both the W.Ps. : Mr.A.Albert James Government Advocate (Criminal side) For R7 in both the W.Ps. : Mr.S.R.Suresh Kumar COMMON ORDER The matter was argued at length. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petitions, with liberty to 2/5

file a civil suit. However, this Court is not inclined to grant such liberty to the petitioners to agitate the matter before any other Court, as this Court has prima facie arrived at the view that, in the present case, the initiation of proceedings is based on the allegation of illegal detention of the petitioners and alleged deprivation of their life and liberty under protest, whereas the petitioners are involved in a murder case.

2. Further, in the video recording statement of the aggrieved injured person, both the petitioners' names, namely, Saravanakumar and Ranjith @ Ranjith Kumar, were mentioned and in the statement of A1 also, their names were referred more than 3 places, which prima facie indicates their involvement. However, based on the sworn statement of A6, the names of A1 to A5 were deleted from the charge sheet. When the affected/injured person as well as one of the accused (A1) have deposed about the involvement of the petitioners, and subsequently, based on A6's sworn statement, the names of A1 to A5 were deleted, it creates a certain degree of suspicion, which required reinvestigation. In the absence of any other supporting circumstances, no liberty is granted, and the writ petitions are merely permitted to be withdrawn. 3/5

3. Accordingly, these writ petitions stand dismissed as withdrawn without any liberty. No costs.

NCC : Yes / No 03.02.2026 Index : Yes / No smn2 To 1.The Secretary to State of Tamil Nadu, (Home Department), Fort St. George, Chennai.

2.The District Collector, 3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, 4.The Superintendent of Police, 5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi Sub Division, 6.The Inspector of Police, 4/5

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY , J.

smn2 Common order in W.P(MD)Nos.28438 and 28669 of 2023 03.02.2026 5/5