Dismissed¶31

K.Arunachalam v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC1 Sept 2025WP/23600/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court cannot issue direction for registration of FIR; writ of mandamus refused; High Court intervention only in extraordinary circumstances and rare cases; petitioner to pursue remedy as per Code; Sakiri Vasu relied upon via M.Subramaniam (2020) 5 CTC 463? no - (2020) 5 CTC 464; G.Prabhakaran (2018) 2 LW Crl 489; Article 226 Constitution; FIR registration direction; police enquiry on complaint; Thiruvannamalai SP/DSP/Crime Branch/Land Grabbing Special Cell; dismissed with no costs; impleadment motion closed.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed with no costs and both connected miscellaneous petitions (WMP.No.25815 of 2024 and WMP.No.8243 of 2025, the latter an impleadment motion) stand closed. ¶31

K.Arunachalam Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed with no costs and both connected miscellaneous petitions (WMP.No.25815 of 2024 and WMP.No.8243 of 2025, the latter an impleadment motion) stand closed.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court can, by writ of mandamus under Article 226, direct respondents 1 to 4 to conduct an enquiry on the petitioner's complaint and register a case against respondents 5 and 6 (and others).

¶14

Court's answer

Accepting the categorical position of the cited Division Bench judgment (G.Prabhakaran) and the Supreme Court three-Judge Bench judgment (M.Subramaniam, which relied on Sakiri Vasu), this Court holds that the High Court cannot issue any direction for registration of FIR and can intervene only in extraordinary circumstances and rare cases.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

It is for the petitioner to pursue his remedy as per Code rather than seek a High Court direction for registration of FIR.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Hon. Justice N. Sathish Kumar, sole member; 01.09.2025) - W.P.Crl.No.23600 of 2024 (connected: WMP.Nos.25815 of 2024 & 8243 of 2025): Petitioner P.Ramamurthy (counsel D.Rajagopal), aggrieved at the inaction of Thiruvannamalai district police officials (respondents 1 to 4, represented by APP K.M.D.Muhilan) on his complaint against private individuals Karunanithi and P.Balamurugan, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing respondents 1 to 4 to conduct an enquiry, register a case against respondents 5 and 6 and take action according to law. Relying on the Division Bench judgment in G.Prabhakaran v. The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur, (2018) 2 LW Crl 489, and the Supreme Court three-Judge Bench judgment in M.Subramaniam v. S.Janaki, (2020) 5 CTC 464 (itself resting on Sakiri Vasu's Case), the Court held that the High Court cannot issue any direction for registration of FIR and can intervene only in extraordinary circumstances and rare cases, and directed that the petitioner pursue his remedy as per Code. The writ petition was dismissed with no costs; WMP.No.25815 of 2024 stood closed and the impleadment motion WMP.No.8243 of 2025 also stood closed.

¶1

WP.Crl.No.23600 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.09.2025

¶4

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

W.P.Crl.No.23600 of 2024 and WMP.Nos.25815 of 2024 & 8243 of 2025

P.Ramamurthy

.. Petitioner

Versus

The Superintendent of Police Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶10

The Deputy Superintendent of Police Thiruvannamalai Division, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶11

The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch, Thiruvannamalai.

¶12

4.The Inspector of Police Land Grabbing Special Cell, Thiruvannamalai.

¶13

5.Karunanithi 6.P.Balamurugan .. Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct an enquiry based on the complaint given by the petitioner and register the case against the 5^th and 6^th respondents and others and take action according to law

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

WP.Crl.No.23600 of 2024

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rajagopal For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan for R1 to R4 Additional Public Prosecutor

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition has been filed directing the respondents 1 to 4 to

¶21

conduct an enquiry based on the complaint given by the petitioner and register the case against the 5^th and 6^th respondents and others and take action according to law

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶23

Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 to 4 and perused the materials placed on record.

¶24

The Division Bench of this Court in G.Prabhakaran v. The

¶25

Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur , reported in (2018) 2 LW Crl 489 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its latest judgment rendered by a three Judge Bench in M.Subramaniam v. S.Janaki , reported in (2020) 5 CTC 464 , after relying

¶26

upon Sakiri Vasu's Case, has categorically held that the High Court cannot issue any direction for registration of FIR. High Court can intervene only in extraordinary circumstances and rare cases. It is for the petitioner to pursue his remedy as per Code.

¶27

4.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition stands

¶28

2/4

¶29

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

¶30

WP.Crl.No.23600 of 2024

¶31

dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition in

¶32

WMP.No.25815 of 2024 stands closed.