Disposed

Saravanakumar v. Jayaraman

Madras HC16 Oct 2025CONT P(MD)/2999/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging non-compliance with an earlier direction to complete enquiry into a complaint of job fraud. Police reported that a preliminary enquiry found prima facie material and FIR in Cr.No.391 of 2025 under Sections 420 and 506(1) IPC was registered against Vanitha. Court directed fair investigation and filing of final report within reasonable time and closed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Saravanakumar Vs Jayaraman — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Cont.P.(MD)No.2999 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.10.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

Cont.P.(MD)No.2999 of 2025

¶7

Saravanakumar ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Mr.Jayaraman, The Inspector of Police, Thogaimalai Police Station, Thogaimalai, Karur District. ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to initiate Contempt proceedings against the Contemnor / 3^rd respondent and punish him for the wilful disobedience of the order of this Court in CRL.OP.(MD)No.11568 of 2025 dated 10.07.2025.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugappan For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottaichamy, Government Advocate(Crl.side)

¶12

1/5

¶13

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

¶14

Cont.P.(MD)No.2999 of 2025

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This contempt petition has been filed that the orders of this Court in CRL.OP.(MD)No.11568 of 2025 dated 10.07.2025 has not been complied with.

¶17

2.Earlier, the petitioner has approached this Court in CRL.OP.(MD)No.11568 of 2025 seeking Police protection from the fourth respondent, namely, Vanitha that the fourth respondent, who received money from the petitioner with a promise to arrange a job, has produced a fake appointment order and she has also intimidated the petitioner. The petitioner has also claimed that he has lodged a complaint for this alleged transaction by way of registered post, on 07.07.2025. The respondent Police has claimed that the complaint of the petitioner has been treated as petition enquiry in CSR.No.334 of 2025. Considering this submission, this Court by its order dated 10.07.2025 directed the respondent Police to complete the enquiry within a stipulated period. Now, the petitioner has filed this contempt petition that the orders of this Court has not been complied with.

¶18

3.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent submits that pursuant to the orders of this Court,

¶19

2/5

¶20

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

¶21

Cont.P.(MD)No.2999 of 2025

¶22

an enquiry has been conducted and the respondent Police have found that there are prima facie materials to register the case and therefore, a case in Cr.No.391 of 2025 has been registered for the offence under Sections 420 and 506(1) IPC as against the said Vanitha.

¶23

4.Earlier petition in CRL.OP.(MD)No.11568 of 2025 was closed with a direction to complete the proceedings in CSR. No.354 of 2025. It is now reported that preliminary enquiry has been conducted and a criminal case has also been registered in Cr.No.391 of 2025. This criminal case has to reach its logical conclusion. The respondent Police are not supposed to conduct the investigation in a mechanical manner by putting the blame on this Court that this Court only issued the direction. They have to conduct the investigation in a fair manner as to whether this transaction is a money transaction or it is a transaction for securing job and file the final report within a reasonable time. Accordingly, this contempt petition is closed.

¶24

16.10.2025

¶25

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes gns

¶26

3/5

¶27

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

¶28

Cont.P.(MD)No.2999 of 2025

¶29

¶30

Mr.Jayaraman, The Inspector of Police, Thogaimalai Police Station, Thogaimalai, Karur District.

¶31

4/5

¶32

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

¶33

Cont.P.(MD)No.2999 of 2025

¶34

B.PUGALENDHI,J

¶35

gns

¶36

Cont.P.(MD)No.2999 of 2025

¶37

16.10.2025

¶38

5/5

¶39

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

Saravanakumar v. Jayaraman

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Saravanakumar v. Jayaraman

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Vs M/s.A-1237 Kulalakundu Agricultural Service

M/s. Amman Chamber Vs The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

The Management, Vs the Appellate Authority Under

The Management Vs General Secretary

The Managing Director Vs Sahadevan. a

The Superintending Engineer Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Labour