Disposed¶27

S.Kanthan v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC10 Sept 2025WP Crl./171/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court W.P.Crl.No.171 of 2025 (decided 10.09.2025, N. Sathish Kumar, J.) - writ of mandamus, Article 226, departmental enquiry against Sakthivel SSI and Mukil Arasan SI of Naduveerapattu Out Police Station for exceeding powers and interfering in civil dispute; show cause notices C.Nos.D4/PR.99/2025 & D4/PR.100/2025 dated 18.07.2025; respondent police directed to act as per law; writ petition closed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

If at all any excess was committed by the said officers (Sakthivel and Mukil Arasan), the respondent police shall take action as per law. ¶27

S.Kanthan Vs The Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.Crl.No.171 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10.09.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.Crl.No.171 of 2025

S.Kanthan

... Petitioner

Versus

1.The Superintendent of Police No.18, Pudhukuppam New Street Meenakshi Nagar, Pudhukuppam Cuddalore-607 001.

¶11

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Police Lance 6th Street Lane-4, Kamarajar Nagar Panruti, Cuddalore - 607 106.

¶12

The Station House Officer Naduveerapattu Out Police Station Cuddalore District.

¶13

4.A.Gnanasekaran .. Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondent to conduct departmental enquiry against Thiru.Sakthivel SSI and Thiru.Mukil Arasan SI of Police who is now transferred to Pudupettai Police Station, Panruti from Naduveerapattu Out Police Station based on the petitioner representation dated 16.05.2025.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Shyam Sunder

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.Crl.No.171 of 2025

¶19

For Respondents

¶20

: Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, APP for R1 to R3 Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar for R4

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner sought a direction to the first respondent to take action

¶23

against the Sakthivel and Mukil Arasan for interfering with the civil dispute.

¶24

According to the petitioner, the above persons have exceeded their

¶25

power and interfered in civil dispute, therefore, sought disciplinary proceedings against them. Counter has been filed. It is the stand of the third respondent that proceedings has been initiated by issuing show cause notice vide C.Nos.D4/PR.99/2025 & D4/PR.100/2025 dated 18.07.2025.

¶26