IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI N.Arumugam ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The State Police Complaint Authority /

Additional, Chief Secretary to Government Home, Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600009.

2. The District collector, Collectorate, Tiruvannamalai 606604.

3. The District Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Thiruvannamalai 606 604.

4. Kavith.R.

Sub Inspector of Police, Mangalam Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District 606 752.

5. Dhandapani.N.

Special Sub Inspector of Police, Mangalam Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District 606 752.

6. Plani.K.

Special Sub Inspector of Police, Mangalam Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District 606 752.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to conduct an enquiry and take appropriate/disciplinary action against the 4th to 6th respondents on the petitioner’s complaint, dated 30/04/2025.

For Petitioner(s): P.J.Anitha For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Balamurugan, GA

ORDER

This writ petition is filed to direct the 2nd respondent to conduct an enquiry and take appropriate/disciplinary action against the respondents 4 to 6 on the petitioner’s complaint, dated 30/04/2025.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's brother's sons viz., Shankar and Ramdoss repeatedly interfere with the petitioner's property rights and attacking him on each and every occasion. In this regard, the petitioner has made repeated complaints before the law enforcing agency i.e., the respondents 4 to 6 herein. However, they have not taken any action against the petitioner’s brother’s sons. Thereby the petitioner made a complaint dated 30.04.2025 before the second respondent for taking disciplinary action as against the respondents 4 to 6. However, no action was taken, as on date. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court that direction may be issued to the second respondent to take action against the respondents 4 to 6 based on the complaint given by the petitioner on 30.04.2025 and pass appropriate orders.

4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the case on hand is purely a family dispute between the petitioner’s family, which has to be settled before the Competent Civil Court or before the Jurisdictional Court. Hence, he prays for appropriate orders.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. The facts in the case are not in dispute. The petitioner has made a complaint on 30.04.2025 before the second respondent for taking action against the respondents 4 to 6, since they have failed to take action against the petitioner’s brother’s sons. However, the same was not considered. Hence, this writ petition. In the event, any substance is available in the complaint, the respondents/law enforcing agency may register a case. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on his complaint, he can approach the higher officials for registration of FIR and the same was not considered even then, the petitioner can very well file a complaint before the concerned Jurisdictional Court or approach a Competent Civil Court, instead of filing a complaint for taking disciplinary action against the respondents/law enforcing agency.

7. The case on hand is purely a civil dispute between the petitioner’s family, which has to be ventilated only before the Competent Civil Court or before the Jurisdictional Court, since the respondents/law enforcing agency has no power to interfere with the civil dispute, pending between the parties.

In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the Competent Civil Court or Jurisdictional Court for appropriate remedy. No costs.

13-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No VM To:

1. The State Police co