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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47792

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Victoria Gowri, J
K. Ilayaraja – Appellant
Versus
Superintendent of Police – Respondent
Writ Petition



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: VM. Kannan
For the Respondents: P. Vetrivel

The court maintains the power under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct police to exercise their statutory duty to conduct an enquiry into a complaint within a specified timeframe.

Headnote:This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct police authorities to take action against the third respondent based on a representation dated 31.05.2026. The petitioner alleges failure by the police to act upon the lodged complaint. The Court determined that an enquiry is pending and directed the police to consider the representation and conclude the investigation within four weeks. The core issue pertains to the inaction of police authorities regarding a criminal complaint. The Court observed that procedural fairness and an impartial enquiry are essential, necessitating the issuance of summons under S. 64 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to all parties concerned to reach a just resolution. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions provided.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts and pending police investigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. judicial mandate to conduct enquiry under statutory framework. (Para 4 , 5)

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the 1st respondent to issue necessary direction to the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action as against the 3rd respondent herein on the basis of the representation dated

31.05.2026 submitted to the respondents No.1 & 2 through online.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has lodged a complaint as against the third respondent. However, no action was taken by the police. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed.

3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police submitted that an enquiry is pending.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the materials before this Court. Since no adverse order is proposed to be passed against the third respondent, notice to her is dispensed with.

5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the second respondent police is directed to consider the petitioner's complaint dated 31.05.2026 and conduct an enquiry in this regard, after issuing summons to the parties concerned, under Section 64 of the BNSS, and conclude the same, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. This writ petition is disposed with the above directions.

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