P.Siva vs The Superintendent Of Police
2026 Latest Caselaw 600 Mad

Madras High Court

P.Siva vs The Superintendent Of Police on 20 February, 2026

Author: S.Srimathy

Bench: S.Srimathy

                                                                                              W.P.Crl.(MD).No.966 of 2026


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED :20.02.2026

                                                           CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

                                           W.P.Crl.(MD) No. 966 of 2026

                     P.Siva                                                               ... Petitioner
                                                              Vs.
                     1.The Superintendent of Police,
                       O/o.Superintendent of Police,
                       Dindigul District.

                     2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                       O/o.Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                       Nilakottai Range,
                       Nilakottai,
                       Dindigul District.

                     3.The Inspector of Police,
                       Ammaiyanaikanur Police Station,
                       Ammaiyanaikanur,
                       Dindigul District.

                     4.Periyasamy

                     5.Stalin                                                 ... Respondents

                     PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

                     India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the

                     respondents       1   to     3     herein         to      consider         the      petitioner's


                     _________
                     Page 1 of 6




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                 ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 11:33:28 am )
                                                                                              W.P.Crl.(MD).No.966 of 2026


                     representation/complaint dated 31.01.2026 in view of the judgment of

                     the Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in 2014(2) SCC 1 in the

                     case of Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of U.P., and others.

                                  For Petitioner       :Mr.R.Vignesh
                                  For Respondents      :Mr.A.S.Abul Kaalam Azad, (for R1 to R3)
                                                            Government Advocate (Crl. Side)


                                                                ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ

of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to consider the

petitioner's representation/complaint dated 31.01.2026 in view of the

judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in 2014(2)

SCC 1 in the case of Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of U.P., and others.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner started his own business in the name and style of “VPS

Bricks". The fourth respondent is the father of the petitioner and the fifth

respondent is the brother of the petitioner. The allegation against the

respondents 4 and 5 is that they have illegally taken the bricks, which

were manufactured by the petitioner. But, the fourth respondent himself

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 11:33:28 am )

is claiming to be the owner of the Bricks chamber. The learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner submitted he is the original owner of the said

chamber, for which he has submitted the Chamber Brick Kiln

Registration certificate issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, where

the petitioner's name is stated and the petitioner is the assessee under the

service tax. The registered lease deed also stands in the name of the

petitioner and his mother, named Malika, as the owner of the chamber.

Hence, he seeks direction from the respondent police to consider his

representation after hearing the petitioner.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the

respondents Police submitted that based on the complaint given by the

petitioner, an enquiry has been conducted and the same has been closed.

4.In view of the above, the fourth respondent ought to produce the

relevant documents to substantiate his claim that he is the owner of the

said chamber. However, the respondent police have closed the complaint

merely on the basis of the statement given by the fourth respondent. But,

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 11:33:28 am )

the documents stand in the name of the petitioner. Therefore, the

respondent police are directed to conduct a fresh enquiry and take

appropriate action against respondents 4 and 5, if any cognizable offence

is made out.

5.With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

20.02.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes vsg Note:Issue Order Copy on 25.02.2026.

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 11:33:28 am )

To

1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o.Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nilakottai Range, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Ammaiyanaikanur Police Station, Ammaiyanaikanur, Dindigul District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 11:33:28 am )

S.SRIMATHY, J

vsg

20.02.2026

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 11:33:28 am )