S. Iyyappan vs The State of Tamilnadu,

Court
Madras High Court

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6141 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE P. MURUGAN
WP Crl.(MD) No. 6141 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011595082026}
S. Iyyappan,
S/o, M.Suyambu,
20/32F, Sri Lakshmipuram,
Variyoor Post,
Kanyakumari District. … Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by its, The Superintendent of Police,
Nagercoil,
Kanniyakumari District.
2. The Sub-Registrar,
Kottaram Sub-Registrar Office,
Kanniyakumari District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Kanniyakumari Police Station,
Kanniyakumari District. … Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
rd
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3
nd
respondent to take necessary steps based on the 2 respondent
complaint dated 05.10.2026 by considering the petitioner's
representation dated 21.10.2026 within time limit as prescribed by
this Court.
__________
Page  1  of  11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:09:02 am )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6141 of 2026
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Saravana Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.D.Rajaboopathy,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
for R1 and R3
: Mr. A.Sivasubramanian,
Additional Government Pleader for R2
O R D E R
This petition is filed to direct the third respondent to take
necessary steps based on the second respondent’s complaint dated
05.10.2026 by considering the petitioner's representation dated
21.10.2026.
2. The petitioner is a resident of Sri Lakshmipuram,
Variyoor Post, Kanyakumari District. He lodged a complaint dated
22.09.2026 before the first respondent, namely, the Superintendent
of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, stating that his property
had been sold somebody by means of forged documents, mentioning
the names of Harikrishnan, Vanaja, Aadhilingam, Vedhala Iyankan.
Therefore, he sought appropriate legal action against the persons,
who had created forged documents relating to the petitioner's
__________
Page  2  of  11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:09:02 am )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6141 of 2026
property and executed the same in favour of Vanaja, by
Harikrishnan.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
said complaint could have been given in person at the office of the
first respondent. In the meantime, the petitioner also lodged a
complaint before the Sub Registrar, Kottaram, dated 22.09.2026,
regarding the manipulation of government records and requested that
no further encumbrances be created. Thereafter, the petitioner
submitted an RTI application dated 12.10.2026, before the Sub
Registrar, Kottaram, and obtained certain particulars, by a letter
dated 14.10.2026. Based on the complaint given by the petitioner,
the said Sub Registrar, Kottaram, sent a letter dated 05.10.2026 to
the Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari Police Station, Kanyakumari
District, who is the third respondent in this case, stating that certain
acts of forgery had taken place with regard to the properties of
Iyyappan and that a document had been executed by
Harikrishnan in favour of Vanaja. Having the public record has been
manipulated by two private parties in respect of the properties
belonging to a third party, the Sub-Registrar requested the Inspector
of Police, through the official letter dated 05.10.2026, to take
__________
Page  3  of  11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:09:02 am )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6141 of 2026
appropriate action in accordance with law. However, the third
respondent failed to take any action on the official communication
sent by the Sub Registrar.
4. Aggrieved by the inaction of the police authorities, the
petitioner filed the present petition. The petitioner also sent a
reminder dated 21.10.2026 to the first respondent, referring to his
earlier complaint dated 25.09.2026 and requesting that legal action
be taken against the persons concerned. Since no action had been
taken by any of the police authorities, the petitioner has filed the
present petition seeking a direction to the third respondent to take
appropriate steps based on the complaint forwarded by the second
respondent, namely, the Sub Registrar, dated 05.10.2026, by
considering the petitioner's complaint dated 21.10.2026, within a
stipulated time.
5. When the matter was taken up in the morning session
and having known the facts and heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side),
and upon perusing the materials available on record, this Court finds
that there appears to be something seriously amiss in the failure of
the third respondent to take action. The Sub-Registrar, who is a
__________
Page  4  of  11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:09:02 am )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6141 of 2026
public authority, had addressed an official communication to the
Inspector of Police, stating that certain acts of forgery had taken
place in the public records by creating forged documents in respect
of the petitioner's property and that the documents had been
executed by Harikrishnan and others in favour of Vanaja. According
to the petitioner's contention, the property belongs to him and is also
the subject matter of a civil case. Therefore, the Sub Registrar
requested the police authorities to initiate criminal action in the
manner known to law.
6. When this Court called upon the learned Government
Advocate (Criminal Side) to ascertain the action taken by the third
respondent, the learned Government Advocate (criminal side)
submitted that the complaint had been received by the third
respondent on 14.10.2026 and that the matter was being processed
for further action.
7. Thereafter, this Court directed the learned Government
Advocate (criminal side) to ascertain the actual status of the
complaint and directed the Inspector of Police to appear either in
person or through video conferencing, since the Inspector of Police
is serving in Kanyakumari District.
__________
Page  5  of  11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:09:02 am )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6141 of 2026
8. Accordingly, the Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari
Police Station, Kanyakumari District, Mr.Bharathlingam, appeared
through video conferencing during the afternoon session.
9. When this Court called upon the Inspector of Police to
explain the action taken by the third respondent and posed certain
questions to elicit the relevant facts, he submitted that the complaint
sent by the Sub Registrar has been received by him on 07.10.2026.
Initially, he stated that he sought for legal opinion. However, upon
further questioning by this Court, he finally admitted that no legal
opinion had been sought so far and that he intended to obtain a legal
opinion from the Government Advocate, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari
District.
10. He initially stated that he had sought a legal opinion.
Thereafter, he submitted that he intended to seek such an opinion
and was taking steps to send a communication to the Government
Advocate for obtaining the same. Such a statement made by the
Inspector of Police, who is heading the main town police station in
Kanyakumari District, is not acceptable. When this Court called
__________
Page  6  of  11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:09:02 am )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6141 of 2026
upon him to explain the status of the complaint forwarded by the
Sub Registrar, it was expected that the officer concerned would
provide a proper explanation.
11. It is pertinent to note that the Sub Registrar, being a
public authority, had sent an official communication stating that
forgery of documents had taken place in his office without his
knowledge and that the same came to light after the petitioner's
complaint was received. Immediately thereafter, the public authority
forwarded a complaint to the police authorities, requesting them to
intervene and take necessary legal action.
12. Even after receiving the said complaint from the Sub
Registrar, the Inspector of Police remained silent for nearly 34 days
without taking any action. Such conduct clearly indicates that he is
not the appropriate person to head the police station. The affected
person not only made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police,
but he had also the Sub Registrar. Acting upon the complaint
received from the petitioner, the Sub Registrar immediately took
steps and submitted a written complaint dated 05.10.2026 to the
Inspector of Police. However, no action has been taken till date.
__________
Page  7  of  11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:09:02 am )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6141 of 2026
13. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
submitted that, after the filing of the present case and on going
through the papers, he had advised the police to proceed with the
complaint sent by the Sub Registrar in the manner known to law.
The submission made by the learned Government Advocate is
recorded.
14. Thereafter, the learned Government Advocate further
submitted that there was a delay on the part of the Inspector of
Police and that he has advised the police to proceed not only with
the present complaint but also with any other complaint received at
the police station, immediately and in accordance with law. The said
submission is taken on record.
15. The Inspector of Police, Mr.Bharathlingam also
submitted that he will attend to the complaint given by the Sub
Registrar immediately. Having kept the matter pending for nearly 34
days, the Inspector of Police has come forward with such a
submission only after the intervention of this Court, which is not
satisfactory. Even in the initial stage itself, the Inspector of Police
__________
Page  8  of  11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:09:02 am )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6141 of 2026
stated that he has sought a legal opinion. However, he subsequently
admitted that no legal opinion had been sought so far and that he
was only intending to initiate steps to obtain such an opinion. This
contradictory statement raises serious doubts regarding the manner
in which he has been discharging his official duties. Whether he is
apprehensive of the persons allegedly involved or whether the
complaint forwarded by the Sub-Registrar is not convenient for him
to act upon is not known to this Court.
16. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the
complaint forwarded by the Sub Registrar, dated 05.10.2026,
deserves to be entrusted to some other Inspector of Police in
Kanyakumari District, and the said officer shall proceed further in
accordance with law.
17. In view of the lapses on the part of the Inspector of
Police, Kanyakumari Police Station, the Superintendent of Police,
Kanyakumari District, is directed to initiate appropriate departmental
proceedings against the Inspector of Police and bring the same to a
logical conclusion at the earliest. A report in this regard shall be
submitted to this Court within three months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
__________
Page  9  of  11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:09:02 am )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6141 of 2026
18. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands
disposed of.
11.11.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
LS
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Nagercoil,
Kanniyakumari District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Kanniyakumari Police Station,
Kanniyakumari District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
__________
Page  10  of  11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:09:02 am )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 6141 of 2026
DR. P. MURUGAN, J.
LS
WP Crl.(MD) No. 6141 of 2026
11.11.2026
__________
Page  11  of  11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 11:09:02 am )