Disposed

B. Radhakrishnan v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC25 Aug 2025WP Crl.(MD)/1087/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged police inaction on complaints alleging that the then Inspector of Police colluded with a Revenue Inspector and registered a false case detaining him. A case under Section 211 IPC was already registered against the Revenue Inspector. The court directed the Superintendent of Police to look into the complaint and take appropriate action.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to look into the petitioner's complaint and take appropriate action.

B. Radhakrishnan Vs The Superintendent of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.1087 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 25.08.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.1087 of 2025

B.Radhakrishnan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶11

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police, Bazaar Police Station, Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third respondent to conduct an enquiry under direct supervision of the second respondent or any other competent higher Police Officials, based on

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.1087 of 2025

¶17

the petitioner’s complaint lodged on 06.11.2022, 11.01.2023 and 28.06.2023 and take necessary action in accordance with law within the time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugan

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate(Crl.side)

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that his complaint has not been addressed by the respondent Police.

¶22

2.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side)

¶23

appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submits that based on the complaint of the petitioner, a case in

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.1087 of 2025

¶27

Cr.No.292 of 2023 has been registered as against the Revenue Inspector, for the offence under Section 211 IPC.

¶28

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s grievance is not as against the Revenue Inspector, it is in fact, the then Inspector of Police, who has colluded with the Revenue Inspector and also has detained him by registering a false case.

¶29

4.Considering the above submission, this Court directs the first respondent to look into the petitioner’s complaint and take appropriate action. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

25.08.2025

gns

3/5

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

¶34

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.1087 of 2025

¶35

¶36

1.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶37

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶38

3.The Inspector of Police, Bazaar Police Station, Ramanathapuram.

¶39

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

¶40

4/5

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.1087 of 2025

¶43

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶44

gns

¶45

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.1087 of 2025

¶46

25.08.2025

¶47

5/5

¶48

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

B. Radhakrishnan v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Radhakrishnan v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mary Joshi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

L.Natchiappan Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Gnana Ishwarya Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Kurumban Vs The Inspector of Police

Muthupandi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

Hendry Sagayraj Vs The Inspector of Police