M.Kokilavani v. The Commissioner Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 02.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI M.Kokilavani ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Tiruchirappalli.

3.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Tiruchirappalli City.

... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to initiate appropriate action on the petitioner's representation dated 21.06.2025 by disposing it within the stipulated time according to law. For Petitioner : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 1/5

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to initiate appropriate action on the petitioner's representation dated 21.06.2025 in accordance with law within a stipulated time.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that one Sathish approached the petitioner, introduced himself as the Managing Director of M/s.Ellesun Technologies and Services Private Limited, Trichy, and collected an investment of Rs.7,50,000/- from the petitioner on the promise that the same would be returned along with profit. Thereafter, the said Sathish collected huge amounts as investments from several persons, locked his office, and absconded without making any repayment.

3. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 21.06.2025 to the 1st respondent, which was forwarded to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent conducted an enquiry on 22.07.2025, but Sathish did not attend the enquiry. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent orally informed the petitioner that the complaint had been forwarded to the 2nd respondent. However, no action has been taken till date. Hence, the present case. 2/5

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

5. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation 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 representation 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.

6. Without going into the merits of this case, this Court hereby direct the 3rd respondent police to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.06.2025 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.

7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. 02.12.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes mkn 3/5

To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Tiruchirappalli.

3.The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Tiruchirappalli City.

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

4/5

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

mkn 02.12.2025 5/5