Madras HC Dismisses Woman’s Plea Accusing Police Of Home Robbery After She Omitted Counterfeit-Gold Case Naming Her And Husband

The petitioner alleged that six persons, including a police Sub-Inspector, entered her home, assaulted her husband, took cash and jewellery, removed three two-wheelers, and demanded money.

She sought action against those responsible, recovery of the property, police protection, and consideration of her representation.

State records showed that Villianur Police had registered a cheating case before the alleged incident; the petitioner and her husband were named in connection with that case, and two-wheelers were seized under mahazars.

The petitioner’s husband also had a police history sheet listing sixteen cases.

Kandamangalam Police had enquired into the complaint and informed the complainant that further action was dropped.

The petitioner’s affidavit did not disclose these matters.

Article 226 jurisdiction is extraordinary, equitable, and discretionary; a litigant must disclose material facts and approach the Court with clean hands, and material suppression or an attempt to mislead may alone justify dismissal (*K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.*, (2008) 12 SCC 481; *Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh*, (2010) 2 SCC 114).

*Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh*, (2014) 2 SCC 1, requires police to register a case where information discloses a cognizable offence, but does not itself entitle a complainant to mandamus in every complaint against police officers.

A person aggrieved by refusal to register a case may approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) of the BNSS and the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3); the writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily replace those remedies (*Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh*, (2008) 2 SCC 409; *Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage*, (2016) 6 SCC 277).

The Court found that the petitioner’s account portrayed the entry and seizure as a robbery by strangers while omitting the pre-existing Villianur case, the naming of her and her husband as accused, the seizure of the two-wheelers under mahazars, and the police enquiry and closure of her complaint.

Those facts were material to the relief sought and within her knowledge; their omission presented the seizure as an unrelated criminal act and misled the Court.

The petition therefore failed the clean-hands requirement and could be dismissed on that basis.

The Court did not decide whether the complaint should have been registered as an FIR, noting the statutory alternatives; it also observed that mandamus was not the remedy for the petitioner’s asserted apprehension of police action.

It ordered her to pay costs of ₹10,000 to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai, within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.