V.Senthilkumar Vs the Superintendent of Police

¶1

WP No. 15608 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

WP No. 15608 of 2025

¶7

V.Senthilkumar

¶8

S/o. Velayutham North Stret Nattaramangalam Kattumannar Koil Taluk, Cuddalore Distirct

¶9

..Petitioner(s)

¶10

Vs

¶11

The Superintendent Of Police Superintendent Of Police Cuddalore

¶12

The Deputy Superintendent Of Polcie Deputy Superintendent O Fpolcie Sethiyathoppu Cuddalore District

¶13

The Inspector Of Police Kattumannar Koil Police Station Kattumannar Koil Taluk, Cuddalore District

¶14

Kannappan S/o. Kaliyaperumal South Street Udayarkudi, Kattumannar Koil Staluk, Cuddalore District

¶15

Mathiyazhagan S/o. Kaliyapeurmal, Meleni Kozhi Sivankoil Stret, Udayarpalayam Ariyalur District

¶16

Kamalapathy S/o. Sivagurunathan Nagappa Nagar Crompettiai Thirunnermalai, Kancheepuram Kanceepuram

¶17

Murugan S/o. Kaliyaperumal Maeni Kozhi Sivankoil Street, Udayarpalayam Ariyalur District.

¶18

Amaravathi S/o. Ekambaram Maleni Kozhi Sivankoil Street, Udayarpalayam, Ariyalur District

¶19

..Respondent(s)

¶20

__________ Page1 of 4

¶21

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

¶22

WP No. 15608 of 2025

¶23

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for entire records the impugned NON TRACEABLE CERTIFICATE of the 3rd respondent dated 27.12.2024 and to quash the same as illegal and unsustainable and further direct the 3rd respondent take criminal proceeding against the 4 to 8 respondents with records to false non traceable certificate.

¶24

For Petitioner(s): A.Murthy For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R1 to R4 Ms.D.Jagajothi For R6 & R8

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This Writ Petition has been filed to call for entire records relating to the impugned NON TRACEABLE CERTIFICATE of the 3rd respondent dated 27.12.2024 and to quash the same as illegal and unsustainable and further direct the 3rd respondent take criminal proceeding against the 4 to 8 respondents with records to false non traceable certificate.

¶27

On perusal of the records reveals that the 4th respondent executed a

¶28

sale agreement in respect of the subject property in favour of the petitioner, but subsequently failed to execute the sale deed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance against the 4th respondent in O.S. No. 143 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore. On the other hand, the 4th respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner in O.S.

¶29

Page2 of 4

¶30

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

¶31

WP No. 15608 of 2025

¶32

No. 161 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kattumannarkoil. Both suits were clubbed together, and the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a judgment dated 18.12.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeals in A.S. Nos. 495 and 497 of 2019 before this Court, and both appeals are pending. In the meantime, the 4th respondent allegedly colluded with respondents 5 to 8 and lodged a complaint as if the original documents were missing, thereby obtaining a Non-Traceable Certificate to create further encumbrances over the subject property. Admittedly, the appeal suits are pending, and if the petitioner succeeds in the said appeals, he will be entitled to specific performance in respect of the subject property. Furthermore, the 3rd respondent issued the Non-Traceable Certificate solely upon the request made by the 4th respondent. Following the issuance of the Non-Traceable Certificate, sale deeds were also executed in favour of respondents 5 to 8 herein. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the said sale deeds if he succeeds in the pending appeal suits. That apart, no useful purpose would be served by challenging the Non-Traceable Certificate issued by the 3rd respondent.

¶33