Dismissed¶45

R.Sethupathy v. Ramachandran

Madras HC2 Dec 2025CONT P(MD)/2826/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

contempt petition; Section 11 Contempt of Courts Act 1971; wilful/willful disobedience; order dated 22.10.2024 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18118 of 2024; Section 528 BNSS police protection; Inspector of Police Karaikudi North Police Station Sivagangai; suo motu impleading 15.10.2025; enquiry notices 15.01.2025 and 10.10.2025; Crime No.360 of 2025; Sections 316(2) 318(2) 318(4) 69 296(b) 351(3) BNS; Sections 3(l)(r) 3(l)(s) SC/ST (POA) Act; judicial custody; complaint closed after enquiry; closure report; Crl.A.(MD)No.1177 of 2025 bail appeal dismissed; nothing survives; contempt petition dismissed; liberty to challenge closure report; K. Murali Shankar J.; Madras High Court Madurai Bench.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed as nothing survived; petitioner left at liberty to challenge the closure report in the manner known to law, if so advised.

R.Sethupathy Vs Ramachandran — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt petition dismissed as nothing survived; petitioner left at liberty to challenge the closure report in the manner known to law, if so advised.

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the police respondents (contemnors) wilfully disobeyed this Court's order dated 22.10.2024 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18118 of 2024 directing an enquiry into the petitioner's request for police protection, warranting punishment under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. +1 more

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Considering that the petitioner is facing a criminal case for grave offences and is in judicial custody, his representation for police protection cannot be looked into.

¶42

Key takeaways

Since the first respondent, after enquiry, closed the complaint and produced the copy of the closure report, this Court concludes that nothing survives in the contempt petition, which therefore stands dismissed.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (K. Murali Shankar, J., 02.12.2025) - Cont.P.(MD)No.2826 of 2025 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18118 of 2024: R. Sethupathy filed this contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against four police inspectors (R2-R4 suo motu impleaded on 15.10.2025) alleging wilful disobedience of the Court's order dated 22.10.2024 (passed on his Section 528 BNSS plea for police protection), which had directed the Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North PS, Sivagangai District, to issue notice, conduct enquiry and pass orders within two weeks. Notices of 15.01.2025 and 10.10.2025 were sent for enquiry; the petitioner was meanwhile arrested in Crime No.360 of 2025 for offences under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 318(4), 69, 296(b) and 351(3) BNS and Sections 3(l)(r) and 3(l)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act; his bail application before the Special Court, Sivagangai was dismissed and appeal Crl.A.(MD)No.1177 of 2025 was likewise dismissed, confirming the trial Court's order. Holding: a police-protection representation by a person charged with grave offences and in judicial custody cannot be looked into; as the first respondent closed the complaint after enquiry (while the petitioner was in DSP custody) and produced the closure report, nothing survived in the contempt petition. Disposition: contempt petition DISMISSED, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the closure report in the manner known to law.

¶1

CONT.P.(MD)No.2826 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.12.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTIC E K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

CONT.P.(MD)No.2826 of 2025 in

¶7

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.18118 of 2024

R.Sethupathy

... Petitioner/

Petitioner

Vs.

1.Mr.Ramachandran

The Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶14

2.Mr.Ravendran

¶15

The Inspector of Police, Manamadurai Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶16

3.Mr.Selvakumar

¶17

The Inspector of Police, Perumalpuram Police Station, Tirunelveli City.

¶18

4.Mr.Chandramohan

¶19

The Inspector of Police, D2 Pallapatti Police Station, Salem City. ... Contemnors (R2 to R4 are suo motu impleaded as per of this Court dated 15.10.2025 passed in Cont.P.(MD)No.2826 of 2025)

¶20

1/6

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

CONT.P.(MD)No.2826 of 2025

¶23

PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the contemnors for their willful disobedience of the order dated 22.10.2024 made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18118 of 2024 passed by this Court.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sureshkumar

¶25

For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the respondents for their wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P. (MD)No.18118 of 2024 dated 22.10.2024.

¶28

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, in pursuance of the direction of this Court, the respondents 2 to 4 are present before this Court. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for

¶29

the respondents would submit that the first respondent (present Inspector attached to Karaikudi North Police Station) is taking treatment and hence, unable to attend the Court today.

¶30

It is evident from the records that the petitioner gave a representation seeking police protection and since there was no action, he

¶31

2/6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

CONT.P.(MD)No.2826 of 2025

¶34

filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18118 of 2024 before this Court invoking Section 528 BNSS seeking direction for police protection and this Court vide order dated 22.10.2024 directed the Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, to issue notice to the petitioner as well as the private respondent and conduct enquiry and pass orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of that order. The petitioner alleging non-compliance filed the present contempt petition.

¶35

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents would submit that initially notice was sent to the petitioner on 15.01.2025 directing him to appear on 18.01.2025. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also concede the same and would submit that though he appeared for the enquiry, the other side has not turned up.

¶36

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents would submit that after the petitioner's contempt petition, they have sent a notice to the petitioner to attend the enquiry scheduled on 10.10.2025 but since the petitioner was not found, notice was affixed on the door of his house and that subsequently they came to

¶37

3/6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

CONT.P.(MD)No.2826 of 2025

¶40

know that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the case in Crime No.360 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 318(4), 69, 296(b) and 351(3) BNS and Sections 3(l)(r) and 3(l)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. He would further submit that since the petitioner was in the custody of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is the investigating officer for the case in Crime No.360 of 2025, the first respondent enquired him and on the basis of the enquiry, complaint was ordered to be closed.

¶41

It is not in dispute that the petitioner moved an application before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Sivagangai for bail and the same was ordered to be dismissed and challenging the said dismissal order, he filed an appeal before this Court in Crl.A.(MD)No.1177 of 2025 and this Court, considering the gravity of the offence alleged and the initial stage of the investigation, dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the order of the trial Court.

¶42

Since the petitioner made a representation for police protection, considering the fact that the petitioner is having a criminal case for grave offences and is in judicial custody, the same cannot be looked into. 4/6

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

CONT.P.(MD)No.2826 of 2025

¶45

Moreover, the first respondent, after enquiry, closed the complaint and produced the copy of the closure report. Hence, this Court concludes that nothing survives in the contempt petition. Accordingly, this Contempt Petition stands dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the closure report in the manner known to law, if so advised.

¶46

02.12.2025 NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No csm

¶47

¶48

1.Mr.Ramachandran The Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶49

2.Mr.Ravendran

¶50

The Inspector of Police, Manamadurai Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶51

3.Mr.Selvakumar The Inspector of Police, Perumalpuram Police Station, Tirunelveli City.

¶52

4.Mr.Chandramohan The Inspector of Police,

¶53

D2 Pallapatti Police Station, Salem City.

¶54

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

¶55

5/6

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

CONT.P.(MD)No.2826 of 2025

¶58

K.MURALI SHANKAR , J.

¶59

csm

¶60

ORDER MADE IN CONT.P.(MD)No.2826 of 2025 in CRL.O.P.(MD)No.18118 of 2024

¶61

Dated : 02.12.2025

¶62

6/6

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 22.10.2024 of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18118 of 2024 directing the Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North PS to notify parties, conduct an enquiry into the petitioner's police-protection request and pass orders within two weeks; its alleged wilful non-compliance is the subject of this contempt petition.¶23
Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) · 22.10.2024
Prior proceeding
Petitioner had given a representation seeking police protection; receiving no action, he filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18118 of 2024 invoking Section 528 BNSS.¶34
Prior proceeding
By order dated 22.10.2024 this Court directed the Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North PS to issue notice to the petitioner and the private respondent, conduct enquiry and pass orders within two weeks.¶34
Prior proceeding
Notice was initially sent to the petitioner on 15.01.2025 directing him to appear for enquiry on 18.01.2025.¶35
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's counsel conceded that the petitioner attended the enquiry but the other side did not turn up.¶35
Prior proceeding
After the contempt petition, notice was sent for an enquiry scheduled on 10.10.2025; the petitioner was not found and the notice was affixed on the door of his house.¶36
Prior proceeding
The petitioner was arrested in connection with Crime No.360 of 2025 registered for offences under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 318(4), 69, 296(b) and 351(3) BNS.¶40
Prior proceeding
While the petitioner was in the custody of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (investigating officer of Crime No.360 of 2025), the first respondent enquired him and, on the basis of the enquiry, the complaint was ordered to be closed.¶40
Prior proceeding
The petitioner moved a bail application before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Sivagangai, which was dismissed.¶41
Prior proceeding
Challenging the dismissal, he filed Crl.A.(MD)No.1177 of 2025 before this Court, which dismissed the appeal considering the gravity of the offence alleged and the initial stage of the investigation.¶41
Prior proceeding
The appellate dismissal thereby confirmed the order of the trial Court.¶41
Prior proceeding
Respondents 2 to 4 were suo motu impleaded by this Court's order dated 15.10.2025 in Cont.P.(MD)No.2826 of 2025.¶19

R.Sethupathy v. Ramachandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sethupathy v. Ramachandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Masanam (Died) 1.Gopal Vs Hameethabeevi

1. a.Mayandi alias Alex Pandian (Died) 2.M.Indira Vs Arumugam

1. James (Died) 2.Sukumari. N Vs Sundaradhas

1.Ammavasi (Died) 2.Virumayi Vs American Mission Church

S.Suresh Vs Rev.Fr.Peter

1.Kittusamy Gounder (Died) 2.K.Sakthivel (Died) 3.S.Subathra Vs Murugesan