Disposed

R. Sophanadevi v. The State of Tamil nadu

Madras HC12 Mar 2026CRL OP(MD)/5242/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife of a man named in an FIR, summoned by police to disclose his whereabouts, alleged harassment including police entry into her college workplace. On the Government Advocate's statement that she would not be called for further enquiry, the court closed the petition, leaving her free to pursue proceedings for alleged human rights violation.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed on recording the police statement that the petitioner would not be called for further enquiry; liberty reserved to initiate proceedings for alleged human rights violation.

R. Sophanadevi Vs The State of Tamil nadu — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5242 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 12.03.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

Crl.OP.(MD)No.5242 of 2026

¶7

R.Shophanadevi ...Petitioner

¶8

1.The State Rep. by,

¶9

The Superintendent of Police,

¶10

Virudhunagar District.

¶11

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar,

¶12

Virudhunagar District.

¶13

3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Virudhunagar,

¶14

Virudhunagar District. ...Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act,

¶16

to direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to harass the petitioner in the guise of enquiry.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Seenuramachandran

¶18

for M/s.G.Mariappan For Respondents : Mr.A.Albert James, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶19

1/4

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5242 of 2026

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The present application has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 not to harass the petitioner in the guise of enquiry.

¶24

2.The learned Government advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents, police, on instructions, submitted that an FIR has been registered against the petitioner's husband and in order to enquire about the whereabouts of the husband, a summons was served upon the petitioner and the petitioner was called for an enquiry.

¶25

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the police

¶26

officials have entered into the college premises, in which she was working, and they are harassing her.

¶27

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents Police submitted that the petitioner would not be called for any further enquiry.

¶28

2/4

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5242 of 2026

¶31

5.Recording the same, this Criminal Original Petition stands closed. The petitioner is at liberty to initiate any appropriate proceedings independently for the alleged violation of human rights.

¶32

12.03.2026

¶33

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vsg

¶34

¶35

1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.

¶36

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

¶37

3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

¶38

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

¶39

3/4

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5242 of 2026

¶42

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶43

vsg

¶44

Crl.OP.(MD)No.5242 of 2026

¶45

12.03.2026

¶46

4/4

¶47

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

R. Sophanadevi v. The State of Tamil nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Sophanadevi v. The State of Tamil nadu

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

Nishma Prathiba Vs S.Venkatesa Moorthi

T. Anitha Vs G.Jawaharlal

R.Thomas Vs v.Dakshinamoorthy

S.Shanmuga Sundaram Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Kathiravan @ Tambees Vs The Superintendent of Police, Theni

G.Rajakumari Vs The State of Tamilnadu