Dismissed¶39

G.Jackulin Rose v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Mar 2026CRL OP/4915/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC (M. Nirmal Kumar, J., 03-03-2026) dismisses CRL OP No. 4915 of 2026 (S.528 BNSS, 2023 quash petition) by G.Jackulin Rose against DCB Tiruvarur enquiry notice dated 05.02.2026 issued after the 12.01.2026 order in W.P.Crl.No.41 of 2026 on P.Solaventhan's job-racketing representation of 16.12.2025; petition filed 17.02.2026, after notice date, held not maintainable; fresh notice ordered, petitioner to appear and explain, no coercive action till enquiry concludes.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as not maintainable; Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tiruvarur directed to issue fresh notice; petitioner to appear before respondent police, respond to the notice and give her explanation along with connected documents; no coercive action till conclusion of the enquiry. ¶39

G.Jackulin Rose Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRL OP No. 4915 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

CRL OP No. 4915 of 2026

¶7

G.Jackulin Rose D/o.George Antony ..Petitioner(s)

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, DCB, Thiruvarur District. ..Respondent(s)

¶10

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023, seeking to call for the records pertaining in Na.Ka.No.05/DCB/TVR/2026 dated 03.02.2026 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner(s): Mr.U.Kathiravan Ph.D. For Respondent(s): Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner challenging the impugned notice filed this quash petition.

¶14

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Government school

¶15

teacher, working at St.Arokiya Madha Government Aided School, Velankanni,

¶16

Nagapattinam District. One P.Solaventhan, S/o.G.Padmanaban of Tiruvarur District lodged a complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a petition

¶17

in Crl.O.P.No.19305 of 2025 seeking not to harass. Though, this Court

¶18

Page1 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

CRL OP No. 4915 of 2026

¶21

dismissed the petition, finding that it is a civil dispute with regard to borrowal of money for construction of home and the petitioner laches in informing her employer about the loan, gave a general direction to the police not to interfere with money transaction of any of the parties. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an anticipatory bail petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.21940 of 2025 as crime number not known, but later it was dismissed as withdrawn.

¶22

The said Solaventhan, without bringing the case proceedings of the Court, sent a representation on 16.12.2025 stating that the petitioner has involved in a job racketing case but no action has been taken against her, filed a petition in W.P.Crl.No.41 of 2026, wherein, this Court directed the police viz. Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur, Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch to cause enquiry on the petitioner and to complete the enquiry within a period of four (4) weeks. The petitioner has been issued with the impugned notice, without any notice was ordered to the petitioner and the petitioner was not heard in this matter. Hence, challenging the same, the petitioner preferred the present petition.

¶23

4.From the records, it is found that the impugned notice dated 05.02.2026 is for the appearance of the petitioner for enquiry.

¶24

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in this case the

¶25

Page2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

CRL OP No. 4915 of 2026

¶28

petitioner is involved in a job racketing case and the earlier proceedings referred by the petitioner is projected as though it was a loan for house building and civil dispute but it is not so. The enquiry revealed that the petitioner collected

¶29

money for seeking employment abroad not only from the said Solaventhan but also from others. Hence, the petitioner’s appearance for enquiry is very much required and notice was sent. Since the petitioner approached this Court, seeking for quashing of the impugned notice, no further enquiry has been conducted.

¶30

6.On the submissions, it is seen that the impugned notice dated 05.02.2026 is for the appearance of the petitioner, but the above Original Petition is filed on 17.02.2026, much after the notice date.

¶31

7.In view of the above, this petition is not maintainable. It is also made clear that the complaint against the petitioner is for job racketing. It is for the petitioner to appear before the respondent police, respond to the notice and to give her explanation.

¶32

8.In light of the above, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tiruvarur, is directed to issue fresh notice to the petitioner, since, it is subsequent to the order of this Court dated 12.01.2026 in W.P.Crl.No.41 of 2026. It is for the petitioner to appear

¶33

Page3 of 4

¶34

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

¶35

CRL OP No. 4915 of 2026

¶36

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶37

kas

¶38

before the respondent police and to give her explanation along with the connected documents. Till the conclusion of the enquiry, no coercive action to be taken against the petitioner.

¶39

9.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

¶40

03-03-2026

¶41

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶42

kas

¶43

To.

¶44

1.The Inspector of Police, DCB, Thiruvarur District.