BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.04.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL W.P.(MD) No.10733 of 2025 S.Balamurugan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police, Theni District. Theni 625 531

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Uthamapalayam Sub Division, Theni District. Theni 625 531.

3. The Inspector of Police, Cumbum South Police Station, Theni District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents police officials to preserve a backup the copy of CCTV footage of respective dates from 10.03.2025 to 12.03.2025 of the 3^rd respondent police station based on petitioner representation dated 26.03.2025 and 28.03.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vidhya Sagar For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents police to preserve a backup copy of CCTV footage of respective dates from 10.03.2025 to 12.03.2025 of the 3^rd respondent Police Station, based on the petitioner's representations dated 26.03.2025 and 28.03.2025.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a practicing advocate in the local bar of Theni District. While so, the 3^rd respondent had registered a F.I.R in Crime No. 58 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNSS, 2023 on 11.03.2025 as against the petitioner without any proper enquiry. The allegation in the F.I.R is that, the defacto complainant is working as a Teacher at Showrashtra College in Theni District and on 10.03.2025 at about 9.30 p.m., the defacto complainant along with his police friend, namely, Parandhaman while proceeding in their Hero Honda Splender motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN 28 AL 6547 rode by the said Paranthaman and the defacto complainant travelled as a pillion rider, the motor cycle rode by the accused persons, namely, Raj Kumar and Raghul caused the accident and thereafter some altercations took place between them. While so, they called the petitioner and they went to the place of occurrence and assaulted the defacto complainant and for that, they registered a case. In fact, the petitioner has not at all present in the scene of occurrence. When the petitioner came to the place of occurrence, there were two officials of the 3^rd respondent police station, namely, Alphonse Raja and Zamindhar were already there along with the defacto complainant and other public before the petitioner's arrival. The defacto complainant and his other friends were in drunken mood had caused the accident and assaulted the riders of the Scooty vehicle. While so, when the general public trying to separate and stop the quarrel between them, at that time, the said rider of the Hero Honda has escaped from the occurrence place when the defacto complainant had keep on quarrel in a drunken mood. Upon the request of the general public, the officials had immediately secured the defacto complainant to the 3^rd respondent police and kept him under custody. The above said incident was clearly recorded in the CCTV camera, which is installed in the 3^rd respondent Police Station.

3. The learned counsel would further submit that after the said occurrence, the petitioner has duly taken his friends, namely, Raj Kumar and Rahul (Advocate), who are the Scooty riders sustained injuries in the same occurrence to the Cumbum Government Hospital and admitted them for treatment. Thereafter, when the petitioner has approached the 3^rd respondent Police Station for enquiring the same and also tried to explain the real facts, the officials of the 3^rd respondent Police Station had informed that the man, who rode the defacto complainant's vehicle is none other than a police man of their own station, namely, Parandhaman. So they refused to take action against him. When one