SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65252

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sunder Mohan, J
K.Megala – Appellant
Versus
1.The Superintendent of Police, 2.The Inspector of Police, 3.Poomalar – Respondent
WP CRL.(MD) No.2058 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s.C.Bharathi
For the Respondents: Mr.R.M.Anbunithi

A major has the autonomy to determine their residence, impacting FIR proceedings.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ of mandamus under Article 226, seeking closure of an FIR stating it was a mistake of fact. The court found that the petitioner, now a major, had the right to choose her residence and directed the police to close the case if her wishes were respected. The court’s reasoning asserted the importance of a person’s autonomy once they reach adulthood. The petition was ultimately disposed of, with directions to protect the petitioner from harassment.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeking closure of fir due to personal circumstances. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. court's directive ensuring petitioner's autonomy and protection. (Para 5)

ORDER

The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to close the FIR in Crime No.276 of 2025 as mistake of fact and to take action against the third respondent, by considering the petitioner's complaint dated 06.11.2025.

2.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police, on instructions, would submit that the third respondent had lodged a complaint on 04.09.2025 stating that the petitioner, who was then a minor, went missing; that the respondent police, therefore, went in search of the petitioner; that the respondent police have not harassed the petitioner in any manner; that if the petitioner, who has now attained majority (DOB:04.11.2007) is voluntarily staying with someone, the respondent police would close the case recording the said fact.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is living with her aunt at Pudukottai, as the third respondent is forcing to marry a person against her wish.

4.The petitioner is present in person and has produced her Aadhar card. She is accompanied by her aunt, Selvi, and claims that she is staying with her aunt, Selvi at Pudukkottai. Since the petitioner has now attained majority and has an option to stay with any person of her choice, the respondent police shall close the case after recording her statement and issuing notice to the third respondent.

5.In view of the above, the petitioner shall appear before the second respondent on 14.11.2025 and the second respondent shall issue notice to the third respondent to appear on the same date and close the case if the petitioner is not willing to join with the third respondent. The respondent shall protect the petitioner from any harassment by third parties.

6.With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top