K.Prakash v. The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By The Superintendent Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 03.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI K.Prakash ... Petitioner Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar.

... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take appropriate action based on the petitioner's complaint dated 17.11.2025 within the stipulated time.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Krishnan, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.S.S.Manoj, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to take appropriate action based on the petitioner's complaint dated 17.11.2025 within the stipulated time.

1/5

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's father is a registered contractor with TAHDCO, the Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, and the Forest Department of Tamil Nadu. One Singadurai approached the petitioner and his father seeking employment, projecting himself as a person of honesty and integrity. Believing the same, they appointed the said Singadurai as a supervisor for their construction works.

3. Thereafter, for the purpose of supervision of works and other related expenses, the petitioner and his father transferred a total sum of Rs.82,36,341/-. When the petitioner and his father insisted him to produce accounts for the expenses incurred, he failed to furnish proper bills. However, upon examining the accounts submitted by him, it came to light that the said Singadurai had cheated the petitioner and his father by creating forged documents.

4. Further, the said Singadurai demanded a sum of Rs.26,00,000/- from the petitioner and his father by criminally intimidating them. In this regard, the petitioner lodged a complaint dated 16.11.2025 against the said Singadurai before the 2nd respondent; however, the same was refused to be received, and the petitioner was directed to submit a complaint before the 1st respondent. 2/5

Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a complaint before the 1st respondent on 17.11.2025. Despite receipt of the same, the 1st respondent has not taken any steps to conduct an enquiry. Hence, the present petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side, and perused the materials available on record.

6. It is needless to point out that whenever a complaint of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondent to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, nonconsideration of the complaint made by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. Without going into the merits of this case, this Court hereby directs the respondents to consider the petitioner's complaint dated 17.11.2025 and deal with in accordance with law and conclude the enquiry within a period of two

(2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3/5

8. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. 03.12.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes mkn To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar.

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

4/5

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

mkn 03.12.2025 5/5