S.Balakrishnan v. The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep. By The Director General Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI S.Balakrishnan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its, The Director General of Police, L & O, No.1, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600004.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

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

4.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, No.7, Kamarajar 1st Street, Chinnachokkikulam, Madurai-625 002.

... Respondent PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to direct the second respondent to change the investigation of the complaint under C.No. 125/PG/Camp/DCP-Hqrs/MC/2025 from the file of the third respondent to the file of the fourth respondent.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Laxman For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Mr.A.Mathan

ORDER

Seeking a direction to the second respondent to change the investigation of the complaint under C.No.125/PG/Camp/DCP-Hqrs/MC/2025 from the file of the third respondent to the file of the fourth respondent, this petition is filed. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given a complaint before the 3rd respondent police with respect to white-collar crime allegedly committed by one Selvaganesh of Mookambika Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. The dispute involved is highly complex in nature, and the third respondent police are unable to understand the nuances of white-collar crime. Hence, the petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct an investigation into the multi-crore scam.

2/5

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), Mr. M. Sakthi Kumar, on instructions, submitted that the issue pertains to an internal dispute in the running and administration of Mookambika Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd.. He further submitted that if at all there is a dispute between the partners, the remedy is available before the Company Law Tribunal. However, without resorting to such remedy, the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the third respondent police. The third respondent police are seized of the matter and have summoned the said Selvaganesh for enquiry. The enquiry is still pending and has not yet reached a stage of maturity to conclude as to the nature of the dispute involved or to determine, who should investigate the same. If the petitioner extends her cooperation, after analysing the dispute involved, an appropriate decision will be taken.

4.Though the alleged accused has not been impleaded as a party in this case, Mr. A. Mathan pointed out that the present petition has been filed without impleading him as a respondent. It was further pointed out that the petitioner is none other than the brother-in-law of the accused and that they were jointly running the company, due to which a dispute has arisen with respect to a sum of Rs.60,00,000/-, which is alleged to have been misappropriated by the petitioner. It was contended that the accused ought necessarily be heard. The dispute 3/5

involved pertains to a software company, and the second respondent is directed to monitor the enquiry pending before the third respondent. 5.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

18.12.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No vsg TO:- 1.The Director General of Police, L & O, No.1, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600004.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

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

4.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, No.7, Kamarajar 1st Street, Chinnachokkikulam, Madurai-625 002.

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

4/5

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

vsg Order made in Dated 18.12.2025 5/5