Madras High Court
S.Sunil vs Senthamarai on 26 November, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.11.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
and CMP.Nos.19362, 19360 & 19359 of 2025
LPA.No.41 of 2025
S.Sunil ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Senthamarai
2.The Superintendent of Police
O/o.Superintendent of Police
Villupuram – 605 602
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Kottakuppam Sub-Division
Villupuram District, Theni
4.The Inspector of Police
Vanur Police Station
Villupuram ...
Respondents
LPA.No.42 of 2025
1.The Director General of Police
Page 1 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
Post Box No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004
2.The Superintendent of Police
O/o.Superintendent of Police
Villupuram – 605 602
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Kottakuppam Sub-Division
Villupuram District, Theni
4.The Inspector of Police
Vanur Police Station
Villupuram ... Appellants
Vs.
Senthamarai ... Respondent
Common Prayer: Letters Patent Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, to set aside paragraph 12(a) and 12(c) of the order dated 14.07.2025
passed in Crl.O.P.No.18585 of 2025.
LPA.No.41 of 2025
For Appellant : Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy
For Respondents : Mr.S.Sathia Chandran for
Mr.D.Ashok Kumar for R1
Mr.A.Damodaran for R2 to R4
Additional Public Prosecutor
LPA.No.42 of 2025
For Appellant : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondents : Mr.S.Sathia Chandran for
Mr.D.Ashok Kumar
Page 2 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
These Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the order of the
learned Single Judge directing the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu to
place Mr.Sunil, DSP, under suspension and initiate appropriate disciplinary
proceedings against him, and thereafter proceed further in accordance with
law and also to file an Action Taken Report along with a compliance affidavit
before this Court on or before 05.08.2025 vide order dated 14.07.2025 in
Crl.O.P.No.18585 of 2025.
2. LPA.No.41 of 2025 has been filed by the then Deputy
Superintendent of Police and LPA.No.42 of 2025 has been filed by the police.
The respondent in LPA.No.42 of 2025/defacto complainant is the petitioner in
Crl.O.P.No.18585 of 2025.
3. A brief prelude of the factual position would be necessary on which
the impugned order came to be passed is as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
3.a. The respondent in LPA.No.42 of 2025 has filed a petition in
Crl.O.P.No.18585 of 2025 under 482 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking for
a direction to file final report in respect of the FIR registered in Cr.No.91 of
2024 registered on 24.01.2024 for the offences under Section 147, 447,
294(b), 323, 324, 354-B, 384, 427 and 506(ii) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(a)
and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. The grievance of the respondent in LPA.No.42 of 2025
before the learned Single Judge is that despite complaint was given as early
as 2024, no action has been taken. Hence, the petition was filed seeking for a
direction to file a final report. At that stage, the learned Government Advocate
(Crl.Side) submitted that the complaint was closed after conducting an
enquiry and forwarded to the District Collector. The learned Single Judge has
rightly observed that the procedure followed by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police is not in tune with the CrPC. The learned Single Judge taking note of
the fact that the report of the police officer after investigation shall be filed
only under Section 173 of CrPC before the Court not before the District
Collector. Further, the referred charge sheet is also not served on the defacto
complainant, therefore, finding that there was a gross violation of statutory
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
mandate committed by the DSP, the learned Single Judge directed the the
Director General of Police to suspend the petitioner and for initiation of
appropriate disciplinary proceedings and also and also to file an Action Taken
Report along with a compliance affidavit before this Court on or before
05.08.2025. Challenging the said directions, the present LPAs have been filed
by the then Deputy Superintendent of Police and the police.
4.Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that prior to the issuance of circular dated 06.02.2025 in
Rc.No.B1/2783/SJ&HR/2024 of the Office of the DGP, Tamil Nadu, it was
the general practice of the investigation officer that if it was found that no
caste-based offence was committed against the complainant and that the
complaint was false, final report in the form of closure report will be placed
before the District Level Vigilance and Monitoring Committee constituted
under Rule 17 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter 'committee') and the appellant has
promptly and conscientiously discharged his duties and responsibilities by
placing the closure report dated 11.04.2024 on 02.08.2024 before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
Committee. The appellant being an young officer who conducted the
investigation was of the view that since the case is not made whatsoever and
the complaint was false stemming from a pre-existing civil dispute over land
between the parties, closed the complaint and forwarded the closure report to
the committee. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that though such
procedure is not proper as per law, such practice is all along in existence in
the police department prior to the issuance of circular dated 06.02.2025,
therefore, he may not be imposed with such grave punishment by placing him
under suspension and also initiating disciplinary proceedings.
5. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance of the following
judgments:-
a. K.S.Duraisami Nadar vs. Sivanupapandia Nadar, (1944) 57 lw 168
(Mad) (DB)
b. S.A.L.Narayan Row & anr.V.Ishwarlal Bhagwandas & anr, (1965)
SCC OnLine SC 18
c. K.Rajamanickam vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1991 SCC OnLine Mad
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
d.State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others reported in
(2011) 14 SCC 770
e. Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana and others (2017) 5 SCC
f. C.Muhu vs. K.Thamizh Selvi & anr., 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 37072
g.G.Prabhakaran vs. Superintendent of Police and anr, 2018 SCC
OnLine Mad 14003
h.Director General of Police & others v. Gopal Kumar Agarwal and
another, 2020 SCC OnLine Cal 755
i. Jasbir Singh and others v. State of Punjab & ors., reported in (2022)
13 SCC 462
6. The learned counsel for the respondent/defacto complainant
submitted that the appeals are not maintainable, since, the learned Single
Judge had exercised the powers under 528 of BNSS and rightly held that the
procedure contemplated under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Code of Criminal Procedure
ha been grossly violated. Therefore, seeks for dismissal of the LPAs. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the following judgments:-
a. In Re:S.Govind Swaminathan vs. Unknown cited in 1955CRILJ505
b.Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana and others reported in CDJ 2017
SC 299
c. D.Kumar vs. Raichand Daga and others reported in CDJ 2020
MHC 2631
d. M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, rep by its authorised
representative P.Thiyagarajan vs. R.Selvaraj and others reported in CDJ
2024 MHC 1454
e. K.Natrajan vs. KadekDwi Ani Rasmini & Others reported in CDJ
2024 MHC 4113
f. Deepa and others vs. S.Vijayalakshmi and others reported in CDJ
2025 MHC 738.
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
8. Of course, when the entire matter dealt under Criminal Side under
Section 482 of CrPC/Section 528 of BNSS, any order(s) related only to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
particular matter, absolutely, appeal is not maintainable, but, any
observation/directions are in the nature of affecting the civil right of the third
party and also interfering with the service jurisprudence. Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent confers a right of appeal on a litigant such
observation/direction. Thus, we are of the view that Letters Patent Appeal is
still maintainable, particularly, when the order(s) are outside the scope of the
relief sought in the criminal original petition. Therefore, the contention of the
learned counsel for the defacto complainant cannot be countenanced. In this
regard, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Deepa vs.
Vijayalakshmi and others reported in CDJ 2025 MHC 738 has held as
follows:-
“8.We overrule the said objection. Clause 15 of Letters
Patent of the High Court of Judicature Madras is to the effect
that an appeal shall not lie before the Division Bench from the
judgment / order of the single Judge made in exercise of
criminal jurisdiction. The expression “criminal jurisdiction”
has been defined as one which exists for the punishment of
crimes (P.Ramanatha Aiyar-s Advanced Law Lexican). The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2017) 5
SCC 533 (Ram Kishan Fauji Vs State of Haryana & Others)
had held that the conception of criminal jurisdiction is not to be
construed in a narrow sense. A criminal proceeding is
ordinarily one which if carried to its conclusion may result in
the imposition of sentences. For instance, if an order has been
passed under Article 226 directing the Police to register an FIR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
if any cognizable offence is made out, writ appeal challenging
such an order is not maintainable under Clause 15 (KN Pudur
Primary Agricultural Coop Credit Society Vs G.Balakrishnan
(2018) 2 LW 111).
9.The controversy may have its seed in a criminal
proceeding. But genesis and origin cannot be the sole
determinant. The nature of proceeding, the relief sought for
and the consequences flowing from the order passed by the
learned single Judge will answer the issue whether there was
exercise of criminal jurisdiction or not. The writ petitioner did
not seek bail on the ground that her arrest was illegal. On the
other hand, she wanted the concerned police personnel to be
departmentally dealt with. She sought compensation. These
are matters which do not fall in the realm of criminal
jurisdiction. The award of compensation in a proceeding under
Article 226 of Constitution of India is a remedy available in
public law (Nilabati Behera Vs State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC
746). We, therefore, hold that the above writ appeals are
maintainable.”
9. Superadded, another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in C.Muthu
vs. K.Thamizh Selvi and others reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 37072
has held as follows:-
“16. There cannot be any contra opinion with the regard
to the above said dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. But, here in this case, pending disposal of the writ
petition filed for registration of a complaint, learned Single
Judge has passed an interim order directing the District
Collector, Pudukkottai District not to allow Mr.C.Muthu, P.A. to
the District Collector (Noon Meal Scheme) to retire from
service, affecting his civil right. No doubt, the prayer sought
for by the first respondent herein in the writ petition would
squarely fall within the criminal jurisdiction. But, the interim
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
relief sought for by the first respondent herein in the writ
petition and the interim order passed by the learned Single
Judge are in the nature of affecting the civil right of the
appellant and also interfering with the service jurisprudence.
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent confers a right of appeal on a
litigant against any judgment passed under any Act unless the
same is expressly excluded. For determining the question as
regards Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the Court is required to
see as to whether the order sought to be appealed against is a
judgment within the meaning thereof or not.
17. At this juncture, this Court is of the view that, it would
be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Midnapore Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd., and others
Vs. Chunilal Nanda and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph
Nos.15 & 16 as follows:
" 15. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed during
the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other of the
following categories :
(i) Orders which finally decide a question or issue in
controversy in the main case.
(ii) Orders which finally decide an issue which materially
and directly affects the final decision in the main case.
(iii) Orders which finally decide a collateral issue or
question which is not the subject matter of the main case.
(iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the
progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment.
(v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some
prejudice to a
party, but which do not finally determine the rights and
obligations of the parties.
...
22. The main relief sought for by the 1st respondent herein
in the writ petition is to register a case. But, exceeding the
scope of the main relief, he sought for an interim direction not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
to allow the appellant / Mr.C.Muthu, P.A. to the District
Collector (Noon Meal Scheme) to retire from service and the
learned Single Judge has also granted the relief. On this
aspect also, the interim order passed by the learned Single
Judge cannot be sustained. In this regard, this Court is of the
view that it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cotton Corporation of India Limited
Vs. United Industrial Bank Limited and others reported in
(1983) 4 SCC 625:
"10........ It is indisputable that temporary injunction is
granted during the pendency of the proceeding so that while
granting final relief the court is not faced with a situation that
the relief becomes infructuous or that during the pendency of
the proceeding an unfair advantage is not taken by the party in
default or against whom temporary injunction is sought. But
power to grant temporary injunction was conferred in aid or as
auxiliary to the final relief that may be granted. It the final
relief cannot be granted in terms as prayed for, temporary
relief in the same terms can hardly if ever be granted. In The
State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta(1) a Constitution Bench
of this Court clearly spelt out the contours within which interim
relief can be granted. The Court said that 'an interim relief can
be granted only in aid of, and as ancillary to, the main relief
which may be available to the party on final determination of
his rights in a suit or proceedings. If this be the purpose to
achieve which power to grant temporary relief is conferred, it is
inconceivable that where the final relief cannot be granted in
the terms sought for because the statute bars granting such a
relief ipso facto the temporary relief of the same nature cannot
be granted."
23. There is no dispute that the High Court has
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India and inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
But, whenever a relief relating to a criminal jurisdiction sought
for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court has
to maintain a balance of convenience and see that no order is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
passed exceeding the nature of the jurisdiction. Otherwise, the
same would lead to miscarriage of justice.
10. No doubt, on perusal of the entire order, it would indicate that the
petitioner has not properly followed the procedure and filed a report before
the Court as mandated under Section 173 of CrPC. It is relevant to note that if
really the petitioner has totally omitted to follow the procedure contemplated
under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, separate remedy is available for the defacto
complainant to initiate criminal proceedings by way of a private complaint
which has not been done so. The very relief sought in the original petition is
to conduct proper investigation and to file final report simplicitor and no other
relief is sought for by the defacto complainant, whereas, the learned Single
Judge has ordered for suspension of the petitioner and initiation of
disciplinary proceedings. It is relevant to note that though the offence is also
registered under SC/ST (PoA) Act, separate procedure has been contemplated
for conduct of the investigation by a police officer not below the rank of a
Deputy Superintendent of Police under Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. On careful
perusal of the above Rule makes it clear that the investigation officer so
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
appointed under sub-rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority,
submit the report to the Superintendent of Police, who in turn shall
immediately forward the report to the Director General of Police or
Commissioner of Police of the State Government and the officer in-charge of
the concerned police station shall file the charge sheet in the Special Court or
the Exclusive Special Court within a period of sixty days. In clearer terms,
the above sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 makes it clear that when the investigation is
culminated into charge-sheet or final report, the same is required to be filed
before the concerned Court under Section 173 of CrPC and in all the matters,
the report alone be filed before the superior officer.
11. Hitherto, the date of circular dated 06.02.2025 practice was in
vogue in the Tamil Nadu Police Department that whenever there is a closure
of complaint of the SC & ST (PoA) Act, the report will be sent to the District
Level Vigilance & Monitoring Committee which has been clearly indicated in
the circular of the office of the DGP, Tamil Nadu in
Rc.No.B1/2783/SJ&HR/2024 dated 06.02.2025, therefore, when the
investigation has culminated into closure report and merely because the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
investigating officer had followed the earlier practice of department by
placing the closure report before the Committee constituted as per Rule 17(1)
of the SC/ST (PoA) Rules, 1995 that was in vogue all along, we are of the
view for that a person service career cannot be affected and he may not be
placed under suspension.
12. It is to be noted that as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the
investigation should be conducted as per the procedures, there is no dispute
with that aspect. The moment a cognisable offence is registered by any officer
in charge of the police station, may without the order of a magistrate,
investigate any cognisable case as per Section 156 of CrPC, 1973/Section
175 of BNSS, 2023. As per Section 157(1)(b) of CrPC/Section 176(1)(b), if
it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no sufficient
ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case.
Further, as per 157(2)(b) of the Code, the officer shall also forthwith notify to
the informant of the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be
investigated. Though informing the informant is mandatory, we are of the
view that in every case, there should be either positive report or negative
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
report and at the same time, no doubt, law mandates the filing of the report
under Section 173 of CrPC. It should also be noted that when the very
closure of the complaint has happened after the investigation under SC & ST
(PoA) Act, it was the practice being followed in the Tamil Nadu Police
Department to place the matter before the District Level Vigilance &
Monitoring Committee prior to the issuance of the circular dated 06.02.2025
and the petitioner has placed the closure report as per the practice being
followed by the Tamil Nadu Police Department. Even the circular dated
06.02.2025 of the Office of the DGP, Tamil Nadu would make it clear that in
fact, practice of forwarding such closure report to the District Level Vigilance
and Monitoring Committee are dispensed with and strict instruction has been
given to the officers to file final report in all SC/ST cases before the
concerned Courts.
13. Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 deals with punishment for neglect of
duties.
4. Punishment for neglect of duties.—(1) Whoever,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
being a public servant but not being a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, wilfully neglects his duties required
to be performed by him under this Act and the rules made
thereunder, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to
one year.
(2) The duties of public servant referred to in sub-section
(1) shall include––
(a) to read out to an informant the information given
orally, and reduced to writing by the officer in charge of the
police station, before taking the signature of the informant;
(b) to register a complaint or a First Information Report
under this Act and other relevant provisions and to register it
under appropriate sections of this Act;
(c) to furnish a copy of the information so recorded
forthwith to the informant;
(d) to record the statement of the victims or witnesses;
(e) to conduct the investigation and file charge sheet in
the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court within a
period of sixty days, and to explain the delay if any, in writing;
(f) to correctly prepare, frame and translate any
document or electronic record;
(g) to perform any other duty specified in this Act or the
rules made thereunder:
Provided that the charges in this regard against the
public servant shall be booked on the recommendation of an
administrative enquiry.
(3) The cognizance in respect of any dereliction of duty referred
to in sub-section (2) by a public servant shall be taken by the
Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court and shall give
direction for penal proceedings against such public servant.
14. Section 4 makes it clear that whoever being a public servant but not
being a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, wilfully neglects
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
his duties required to be performed by him under the Act and the Rules made
thereunder, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than six months but which may extend to one year. Though
punishment is stipulated for neglect of duties under Section 4 of the Act, it is
relevant to note that to initiate proceedings under Section 4 of the Act, there
must be an administrative enquiry and recommendation to proceed further as
per proviso to Section 4 of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. Unless there is a
definite recommendation on the administrative side or a positive finding with
regard to the negligent act under the SC/ST Act, the proceedings cannot be
automatically initiated as a matter of right. In this regard, the Apex Court in
State of GNCT of Delhi and others v. Praveen Kumar alias Prashanth
reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 1591, has held as follows :
“13.3.In other words, to set in motion the penal
proceedings including taking cognizance for an offence of
commission and omission under section 4(2) of the Act of 1989,
the recommendation of the administrative enquiry is a sine qua
non. The proviso is an inbuilt safeguard to the public servant
from initiation of prosecution by every dissatisfied complainant.
On appreciation of offences covered by section 3 and the nature
of offences conversely dealt with under section 4 of the Act of
1989, it is noted that a complaint under section 3 presupposes
insult, accusation, victimization, etc. of a member of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by a non-Scheduled
Caste/Tribe person. However, the commission or omission by a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
public servant is rendered as an offence when the public
servant contravenes the duties spelt in section 4(2) of the Act of
1989 read with the Rules of 1995 and by a recommendation
made to that effect. The test in an enquiry is whether the public
servant willfully neglected the duties required to be performed
by the public servant under the Act of 1989 or not.”
15. The above judgment would clearly indicate that, to set in motion
the penal proceedings or even to take cognizance under Section 4 of the
SC/ST Act, the recommendation of the administrative enquiry is a sine qua
non. Therefore, merely because the Deputy Superintendent of Police has not
filed the closure report before the Court as per the procedure and had
followed the practice being followed by the Tamil Nadu Police Department
all along, it cannot be said that the Deputy Superintendent of Police has
committed negligent act under SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989.
16. Considering the above and for the foregoing reasons, merely
because the petitioner has followed the earlier practice which was in vogue in
the Tamil Nadu Police Department, we are of the definite view that the
direction to place him under suspension is totally not proper and the same is
not in the remit of the petition itself, the relief sought for in the petition is only
for a proper investigation and filing of final report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
17. Accordingly, the direction of the learned Single Judge in 12(a) and
12(b) of the order dated 14.07.2025 for the Director General of Police, Tamil
Nadu to place Mr.Sunil, DSP, under suspension and initiate appropriate
disciplinary proceedings against him, and thereafter proceed further in
accordance with law and also to file an Action Taken Report along with a
compliance affidavit before this Court are set aside. It is made clear that
except that direction, all other directions are to be scrupulously followed by
the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu.
18. In view of the above, these appeals stand allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. Now, it is
stated that they have already filed a negative report in the case after proper
investigation and RCS is also served and the same is also not disputed by the
learned counsel for the respondent. It is for the respondent/defacto
complainants to take appropriate legal recourse.
(N.S.K., J.) (M.J.R., J.)
26.11.2025
dhk
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The Superintendent of Police
O/o.Superintendent of Police
Villupuram – 605 602
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Kottakuppam Sub-Division
Villupuram District, Theni
3.The Inspector of Police
Vanur Police Station
Villupuram
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
and
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
dhk
LPA.Nos.41 & 42 of 2025
and CMP.Nos.19362, 19360 & 19359 of 2025
26.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
