A Dhanraj v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Sattur Taluk
CRL OP(MD) NO. 20328 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28-01-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD) NO. 20328 of 2025 A Dhanraj Petitioner(s) Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Sattur Taluk Police Station, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.
Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s):
Mr.C.M. Arumugam For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.S.Manoj, Government Advocate (crl. Side) For Intervenor Mr.M. Solaisamy Prayer: C-38 AB. For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. Not Known/2025 on the file of the respondent Police.
ORDER
Based on the complaint, the respondent police conducted an enquiry, and the same was closed. However, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant vehemently objected to the closure of the First Information Report and relied on the order passed by this Court in CRL.O.P (MD) No. 20162 of 2025, wherein the petitioner herein had filed a petition seeking a direction not to harass him. In the said order, it was recorded that the petitioner had never appeared for enquiry, though three summons had been 1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD) NO. 20328 of 2025 issued for his appearance, and the said petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2025.
2. Considering the facts of the case, the defacto complainant is directed to file a fresh complaint before the respondent police. Upon receipt of the same, the respondent police are directed to process it in accordance with law.
3. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. The defacto complainant is directed to obtain a copy of the closure report and submit the same before the Investigation Officer. Upon such request, the Investigation Officer shall issue the closure report. 28-01-2026 KSA To 1.The Inspector Of Police, Sattur Taluk Police Stationv, Sattur Virudhunagar District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis