Madras High Court
Indhumathi vs The Superintendent Of Police on 9 March, 2026
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M. Nirmal Kumar
WP Crl. No. 506 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-03-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
WP Crl. No. 506 of 2026
Indhumathi
Petitioner
Vs
1. The Superintendent of Police
O/o.The Superintendent of Police,
Vengikkal,
Thiruvannamalai 606 604.
2.Deputy Superintendent of Police
O/o.the Deputy Superintendent of
Police,
Arani, Thiruvannamalai 632 301.
3.State
Rep. by its Inspector of Police
Aarani Taluk P.S.,
Thiruvannamalai.
4.M.Hariharan
5.K.Dandapani
Respondents
PRAYER
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking to direct the 1st to 3rd respondents to complete the enquiry and take a
decision regarding the further course of action based upon the petitioner’s
complaint on 19.02.2026 and to dispose of the enquiry as expeditiously as
possible in accordance with law and pass such further or other orders as this
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 01:44:03 pm )
WP Crl. No. 506 of 2026
Hon’ble may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus
render justice.
For Petitioner: Mr.Munuraj G
For Respondents: Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam,
Addl. Public Prosecutor
for R1 to R3
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a mandamus to respondents 1 to 3 for completion of the enquiry on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner on 19.02.2026.
2.Mr.G.Munuraj, learned counsel on record for the petitioner is before this court. Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, learned Additional Public prosecutor takes notice for respondents 1 to 3.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has sent a representation dated 19.02.2026 to the first and second respondents, but so far no action has been taken on the said representation. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has clearly narrated in her representation as to how she was deceived. It is stated that the petitioner has given five blank unfilled cheques of Federal Bank bearing nos.021672 to 021676 to one Hariharan on the promise that he would arrange for a loan from Equitas Small Finance, Arani Branch but the loan was not sanctioned. The petitioner was informed that she was not eligible for the loan. Therefore, when 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 01:44:03 pm ) WP Crl. No. 506 of 2026 the petitioner asked for the return of the blank cheques, she was informed by said Hariharan that he had handed over the cheques to one Mr.Dandapani. Therefore, on complaint to the police, only four cheques bearing nos.021672, 021673, 021675 and 021676, except cheque bearing no.021674, were returned to the petitioner and that the said Hariharan assured that he would get back the cheque from Mr.Dandapani and would return it to the petitioner. But it was not done so. When the petitioner had questioned the same, it was replied that the said Mr.Dandapani had retained the said cheque. Now, the petitioner came to know that the said Mr.Dandapani has misused the cheque and has given a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the petitioner has sent a representation to the respondents police and as there was inaction on their part, she has preferred this petition.
4.Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, learned Additional Public prosecutor who took notice for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that on the complaint, the petitioner was called for the enquiry and during enquiry, the said Hariharan was also present and he had handed over four cheques to the petitioner and one cheque was retained by Dandapani. When said Dandapani was enquired, he informed that he had filed a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Arani and that he would prove the case before the court of law. Recording the statements, the CSR was closed.
3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 01:44:03 pm ) WP Crl. No. 506 of 2026
5.Considering the above submissions, now it is seen that on a complaint given by the petitioner, the respondents police have enquired the complaint and took action. It is to be noted that said Dandapani has filed a case before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Arani in STC No.549 of 2025 against the petitioner herein under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. But it is the case of the petitioner that the cheque retained by the said Dandapani has been misused by him. This Court is of the considered view that the veracity of the complaint given by the said Dandapani and the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner and as to how the cheque came into the possession of Dandapani and whether the cheque was issued towards discharge of any liability are all matters of fact and evidence to be decided during trial before the trial court. Now, at this stage, this court cannot give any direction to the respondents police regarding the enquiry. In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. No costs.
09-03-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No vvk 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 01:44:03 pm ) WP Crl. No. 506 of 2026 To
1.The Superintendent of Police O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Vengikkal, Thiruvannamalai 606 604.
2.Deputy Superintendent of Police O/o.the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Arani, Thiruvannamalai 632 301.
3.The Inspector of Police Aarani Taluk P.S., Thiruvannamalai.
4.Additional Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 01:44:03 pm ) WP Crl. No. 506 of 2026 M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.
vvk WP Crl. No. 506 of 2026 09-03-2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 01:44:03 pm )