Renu vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by The Director Genera

Court
Madras High Court

WP Crl. No. 2826 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.RAMESH
WP Crl. No. 2826 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012566932026}
Renu
W/o Thsrmalingam,
2/91, Pudhunagar,
Ammanankuppam,
Villupuram District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by
The Director General of Police (DGP),
Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai District.
2. The Superintendent of Police
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Vikravandi Sub Division,
Villupuram District.
4. The Inspector of Police
Kandamangalam Police Station,
Villupuram District.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a direction to the Respondents to take appropriate action in
accordance with law against the persons involved in the alleged the erring
police officials and rogue elements for illegal trespass, extortion and assault,
retrieve the looted cash and gold jewellery, and afford adequate police
__________
Page1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:16:28 pm )

WP Crl. No. 2826 of 2026
protection to the petitioner and his family members and consider the petitioner’s
representation dated 16-9-2026 within a time frame to be stipulated by this
Hon’ble Court.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Rajkumar
for Mr.Nambiselvan B
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar
Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ
of mandamus directing the respondents to take action against persons described
in the prayer as erring police officials and rogue elements for trespass, extortion
and assault said to have been committed at the petitioner's house at
Ammanankuppam, Villupuram District, to retrieve cash and gold jewellery said
to have been taken away, to afford police protection to the petitioner and her
family, and to consider her representation dated 16.09.2026.
2. The petitioner's case, as set out in the affidavit, is this. She is a daily-
wage agricultural labourer aged about seventy. Her husband is bedridden and
undergoes dialysis. On 16.09.2026 at about 10.00 a.m., a group of six persons,
whom the affidavit names as SI Thirumurugan, Parthasarathy, Aiyanar,
Kalaiselvan and Rangarajan and one other, entered her house with crowbars and
sticks, pinned down and assaulted her husband, snatched her seven-sovereign
thali chain, broke open the bureau and took Rs.2,00,000/- kept for medical
__________
Page2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:16:28 pm )

WP Crl. No. 2826 of 2026
expenses, took away three two-wheelers belonging to relatives parked outside,
and demanded Rs.10,00,000/- under threat of foisting false cases on the family.
She gave a complaint to the Kandamangalam police the same day and sent
representations to higher authorities. No first information report was registered
and no protection was given. The affidavit relies on Lalita Kumari v.
Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1 , and states that this is the first
petition filed by her for this relief. The representation dated 16.09.2026 in the
typed set is addressed to the Inspector of Police, Kandamangalam Police
Station, and the postal receipt filed with it shows a speed-post article booked on
15.10.2026.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) produced the
records of the Kandamangalam and Villianur Police Stations. They disclose the
following. On 12.09.2026 the Villianur Police Station, Puducherry, registered
Crime No. 388 of 2026 for an offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS on the
complaint of one Raju of Thoothukudi, who stated that on 30.08.2026 a gang
had induced him to part with Rs.20,00,000/- near Thondamanatham, Villianur,
on the representation that they had unearthed a treasure of gold, and had handed
him a pot of counterfeit gold coins. The first information report was registered
by the Sub-Inspector of Police of that station, whose name is Thirumurugan. On
18.09.2026 one Suresh of Cuddalore was arrested in that crime. His statement
recorded by the Villianur police names, as the persons who ran the scheme,
__________
Page3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:16:28 pm )

WP Crl. No. 2826 of 2026
Dharmalingam son of Arumugam of Periya Ammanankuppam,
Kandamangalam, his wife Renuka, his daughter, his son, his son-in-law and
others of the same village, and states that on the day of his arrest the Villianur
police seized two two-wheelers from the house of Dharmalingam and one from
the house of another accused under seizure mahazars on his identification. The
records also contain the history sheet of Dharmalingam son of Arumugam of
Ammanankuppam, HS No. 245 of 2007 of the Kandamangalam Police Station,
listing sixteen cases from 2006 onwards, the majority for offences under
Sections 420 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, the latest being Chengam Police
Station Crime No. 474 of 2024 under Section 318(4) of the BNS. The fourth
respondent has placed on record the intimation sent by the Kandamangalam
police to Dharmalingam. It states that his complaint received by post was
enquired into as Petition No. 1295 of 2026, that the enquiry disclosed the
registration of Villianur Crime No. 388 of 2026 and the search for the accused
in it, including himself, that the complaint was found to have been exaggerated
in order to escape that case, and that further action on it was dropped.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an
aged woman whose house was entered by force and whose property was taken,
that a complaint disclosing cognizable offences was given to the fourth
respondent on 16.09.2026 and that the fourth respondent was bound to register a
case on it under the law declared in Lalita Kumari (cited supra), and that the
__________
Page4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:16:28 pm )

WP Crl. No. 2826 of 2026
identity or office of the persons who entered the house is no answer to that duty.
The learned Government Advocate submitted that the persons who went to the
house were the Villianur police, acting in a registered crime in which the
petitioner and her husband are named as accused, that the two-wheelers were
seized under mahazars in that crime, that the Kandamangalam police enquired
into the complaint and closed it after informing the complainant, and that the
petition suppresses every one of these facts.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed
before me.
6. The first question is whether the petitioner has placed the true
facts before this Court . The affidavit describes the six persons as a group that
forcibly trespassed into the house with crowbars and sticks, and the prayer
describes them as erring police officials and rogue elements. The affidavit does
name one of them as a Sub-Inspector of Police. What it does not say is why a
Sub-Inspector of Police came to the house. It does not disclose that a crime had
been registered at Villianur twelve days before the date she gives for the
incident, that her husband is named in it as the person who ran the scheme and
she herself as one of the gang, that the two-wheelers she describes as belonging
to relatives were seized under seizure mahazars in that crime, that her husband
is a history-sheeter of the fourth respondent's station with sixteen cases against
__________
Page5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:16:28 pm )

WP Crl. No. 2826 of 2026
him, or that the Kandamangalam police had enquired into the complaint and
closed it with intimation to the complainant. Each of these facts was within the
petitioner's knowledge. Each of them bears directly on the relief she seeks,
which is an order compelling the Tamil Nadu police to proceed against the
officers of another State's police for what was, on the records, a seizure made in
the course of an investigation. The affidavit instead states that the respondents
failed to act on the complaint, when the fourth respondent had acted on it and
had said so in writing.
7. The law on this is settled. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is
extraordinary, equitable and discretionary, and a person who invokes it must
come with clean hands and place all the material facts before the Court; where a
material fact is suppressed or the Court is sought to be misled, the Court may
dismiss the petition on that ground alone without entering into the merits, as
held in K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. , (2008) 12 SCC 481 . A
litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice is not entitled to any relief,
interim or final, as held in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 2
SCC 114 . This petition falls squarely within that rule. The version pleaded is
not a partial account of a true grievance; it is the account of a seizure in a
criminal case rewritten as a robbery by strangers, with the one fact that would
have explained the visit left out. The petition is liable to be dismissed on this
ground, and I dismiss it on this ground.
__________
Page6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:16:28 pm )

WP Crl. No. 2826 of 2026
8. Two further matters may be mentioned, though the petition does not
turn on them. First, the petitioner's own authority does not assist her. Lalita
Kumari (cited supra) declares the duty of the police to register a case when
information discloses a cognizable offence. It does not convert every complaint
against a police officer who executes a seizure into a case that this Court will
enforce by mandamus. Whether the fourth respondent was right to deal with the
complaint as a petition rather than to register it is a question I do not decide,
because the remedy of a person aggrieved by a refusal to register lies before the
Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) of the BNSS and before the
jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, and a writ petition
is not to be entertained in place of those remedies, as held in Sakiri Vasu v.
State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 409 and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v.
Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277 , with reference to the
corresponding provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Second, the
prayer for police protection is, in substance, a prayer by a person named as an
accused to be protected from the police investigating the crime in which she is
named. The law provides a remedy for that apprehension, and it is not a writ of
mandamus.
9. A petition of this kind consumes the time of the Court that belongs to
litigants with genuine grievances, and it is not to be dismissed without costs.
__________
Page7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:16:28 pm )

WP Crl. No. 2826 of 2026
10. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of
Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), payable by the petitioner to the
Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai, within four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
23-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
rsi/sli
To
1. The Director General of Police (DGP),
Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai District.
2. The Superintendent of Police
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Vikravandi Sub Division,
Villupuram District.
4. The Inspector of Police
Kandamangalam Police Station,
Villupuram District.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
__________
Page8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:16:28 pm )

WP Crl. No. 2826 of 2026
N.RAMESH, J.
rsi
WP Crl. No. 2826 of 2026
23-10-2026
__________
Page9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:16:28 pm )