BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4955 of 2024 Palanichamy ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep . by The Inspector of Police, Thiruvengadam P.S., Thenkasi District.

2. Muthuraman

3. Vengateswaran

4. Ramanathan

5. Seenivasan

6. Sababathy @ Rathina Sababathy

7. T.V.S.Ramanathan

8. Harihara Subramanian

9. Gopalan ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records and duly set aside the same and consequently direct the respondent no.1 to comply the order passed in Crl M.P No. 2127/2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate Sankarankovil and consequently register the case.

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Prabu For R-1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

For R-2 & R-6 : Died For R-9 : No appearance

ORDER

Preface:

The power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is intended to ensure that criminal process remains an instrument of justice and does not degenerate into a mechanism of arbitrariness, indifference, or non-compliance with judicial orders.

2. When a learned Magistrate, exercising powers under Section

156(3) Cr.P.C. or Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., 1973, issues specific directions to the investigating agency, such directions are binding and enforceable. The police are not vested with any authority to dilute, disregard, or selectively comply with such orders.

3. The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the action of the respondent police in closing the complaint, despite repeated judicial directions, and to compel compliance with the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil, in Crl.M.P.No.2127 of 2022.

Factual background / Case of the petitioner:

4. The petitioner purchased immovable property situated in Survey No.1333/1 from one Thiruvengadam Raju Aasari. After purchase, he constructed small shops and was in enjoyment of the property.

5. Subsequently, a civil suit was instituted by 160 Brahmanan Dharma Paribalan Sangam, which came to be decreed against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said decree, the petitioner preferred Second Appeal No.112 of 2015 before this Court.

6. During the pendency of the second appeal, respondents 2 to

9 approached the petitioner and assured him that they would amicably settle the dispute and execute the sale deed in his favour, provided he paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.

7. Believing such representation, the petitioner paid the said amount in the presence of witnesses, namely, Alagarsamy, Thiruppathi and Balakrishnan. Acting upon the advice of respondents 2 to 9, the petitioner withdrew Second Appeal No.112 of

2015.

8. Even thereafter, respondents 2 to 9 neither executed the sale deed nor returned the money. The petitioner repeatedly requested performance of the assurance, but the issue was prolonged.

9. On 07.01.2022 at about 9.00 a.m., when the petitioner demanded execution of the sale deed, respondents 2 and 3 allegedly threatened him with dire consequences.

10. The petitioner lodged a complaint before the first respondent police. As no action was taken, the petitioner invoked Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil.

11. By order dated 25.03.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.55 of 2022, the learned Judicial Magistrate directed the respondent police to conduct a preliminary enquiry and proceed in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari v.

Government of Uttar Pradesh¹

12. The Magistrate further directed that, in the event of closure, a copy of the closure report should be furnished to the petitioner.

13. The petitioner alleges that the respondent police neither conducted a meaningful enquiry nor furnished the closure report to him.

14. The petitioner again approached the learned Judicial Magistrate by filing Crl.M.P.No.2126 of 2022 to take action against the Station House Officer, for improper conduct of