Disposed¶35

K.Subbiah v. The State of Tamilnadu, The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC19 Jan 2026CRL OP(MD)/831/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police harassment / enquiry petition disposed without positive order; Section 528 BNSS 2023; temple land title dispute, S.No.107/1, Vedhiyankudi Village, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District; Arulmigu Mazhiamuthu Mariamman Kovil; Patta No.154; petitioner failed to produce title documents despite earlier direction in Crl.O.P(MD).No.22701 of 2025 (order dated 11.12.2025 granting conditional police protection); neither party has proper title deeds; notice to fourth respondent Kaliyammal dispensed with; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; L. Victoria Gowri, J.; Crl.O.P.(MD).No.831 of 2026, decided 19.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

None; the Court found no necessity to pass any positive order and disposed of the Criminal Original Petition. ¶35

K.Subbiah Vs The State of Tamilnadu, The Superintendent of Police — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Court found no necessity to pass any positive order and disposed of the Criminal Original Petition.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents 1 to 3 harassed the petitioner under the guise of enquiry, warranting a direction that they desist from harassing him. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The Court found no necessity to pass any positive order in the criminal original petition, since both the petitioner and the rival claimant do not have any proper title deeds to prove their titles respectively, and accordingly disposed of the petition.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The Court recorded that, pursuant to its earlier order dated 11.12.2025 in Crl.O.P(MD).No.22701 of 2025, the petitioner appeared before the respondent police but failed to produce any documents to substantiate his claim, and had given in writing that he had not produced any documents with respect to Survey No.107/1 at the time of enquiry.

¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), L. Victoria Gowri, J.: A criminal original petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 by K.Subbiah, Poojari and Administrator of 'Arulmigu Mazhiamuthu Mariamman Kovil', seeking a direction that police respondents 1 to 3 not harass him under the guise of enquiry amid a title dispute with the fourth respondent (Kaliyammal) over about 1 acre 85 1/4 cents in S.No.107/1, Vedhiyankudi Village, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District, claimed as temple land but said to be held by the fourth respondent under Patta No.154 allegedly erroneously issued to her husband. Noting that in earlier Crl.O.P(MD).No.22701 of 2025 the Court had, by order dated 11.12.2025, directed the petitioner to appear before the third respondent police with title documents and had ordered police protection if title and possession stood in favour of the temple, and that the petitioner thereafter appeared but produced no documents and gave in writing that he had produced none for Survey No.107/1, the Court held that neither the petitioner nor the rival claimant had proper title deeds, found no necessity to pass any positive order, and disposed of the petition.

¶1

Crl.OP(MD)No.831 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.831 of 2026

K.Subbiah

...Petitioner

Vs.

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

¶11

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District.

¶12

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Nagudi Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

¶13

4.Kaliyammal

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to harass the petitioner in the guise of enquiry.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Vijayalakshmi

¶17

1/5

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.OP(MD)No.831 of 2026

¶20

For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Sakthikumar

¶21

Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Seeking to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry, this criminal original petition is filed.

¶24

2.Considering that no adverse order is likely to be passed against

¶25

the fourth respondent, notice to her is dispensed with.

¶26

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject property in S.No.107/1 to a vast area of 1 acres 85 ¼ cents situated at Vedhiyankudi Village, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District, belongs to a temple, namely, 'Arulmigu Mazhiamuthu Mariamman Kovil'. The petitioner being the Poojari and Administrative of the said temple, is cultivating in the said land. The fourth respondent disputed with the temple committee by claiming title and ownership over the temple property on the strength of Patta No.154, which, according to

¶27

2/5

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.OP(MD)No.831 of 2026

¶30

the petitioner, was erroneously issued to the fourth respondent's husband. In this regard, respondent police, at the intance of the fourth respondent, harassed the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

¶31

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), on instructions, submitted that earlier the petitioner had filed Crl.O.P(MD).No.22701 of 2025 before this Court seeking police protection when the petitioner harvested in the subject land and this Court, by order dated 11.12.2025, directed the petitioner to appear before the third respondent police and produce the necessary documents to substantiate the title of the temple and the third respondent police was further directed to afford adequate police protection to the petitoner, if the possession and title stands in favour of the temple. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner has appeared before the respondent police, however, he failed to produce any documents to substantiate his claim and it is interesting to note that the petitioner had also given in writing that he had not produced any documents with respect to Survey No.107 / 1 at the time of enquiry.

¶32

3/5

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.OP(MD)No.831 of 2026

¶35

5.Recording the same, I do not find any necessity to pass any positive order in this criminal original petition, since both the petitioner and rival claimant do not have any proper title deeds to prove their title respectively. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶36

19.01.2026

¶37

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Rmk

¶38

¶39