Disposed¶27

Dhanakodi v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC20 Jan 2026WP/498/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court interim order, WP Crl. No. 498 of 2026, dated 24-03-2026, M. Nirmal Kumar J.: DCP Adyar directed to conduct personal enquiry and file status report (due 17.04.2026) into allegations of police harassment of petitioner M.Vinothini by Neelankarai police, an alleged Rs.25 lakhs demand linked to removal of third respondent Sivaraman's encroachment, and claimed police support for the third respondent; Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police and Neelankarai Police Station involved.

What did the court decide?

Interim direction to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Adyar, to conduct a personal enquiry into the allegations and counter-allegations and file a status report, including the petitioner's complaint; matter posted on 17.04.2026. ¶27

Dhanakodi Vs the Tahsildar — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the serious allegations and counter-allegations concerning alleged police harassment of the petitioner, an alleged demand of Rs.25 lakhs tied to removal of the third respondent's encroachment, and the reported health condition of the third respondent, an independent enquiry by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Adyar, is warranted.

¶26

Court's answer

In view of the serious allegations and counter-allegations, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Adyar, to conduct a personal enquiry into the matter and file a status report, including the petitioner's complaint.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The matter was posted on 17.04.2026 for filing of the status report.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Nirmal Kumar J.), WP Crl. No. 498 of 2026, order dated 24-03-2026 — Interim order. Pursuant to observations at a previous hearing, the Additional Public Prosecutor reported that the third respondent (Sivaraman, aged about 76 years) is bedridden and unable to move or speak, confirmed by the Inspector of Police, Neelankarai, on a residence visit. The petitioner (M.Vinothini) countered that after the previous hearing she was summoned thrice and, on each appearance before the second respondent police, made to wait long hours and harassed; that she received a call demanding Rs.25 lakhs with assurance that the third respondent's encroachment would be removed only upon payment; and that certain senior police officials and a group operating in Neelankarai were supporting the third respondent for ulterior motives. In view of the serious allegations and counter-allegations, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Adyar, to conduct a personal enquiry and file a status report, including the petitioner's complaint, and posted the matter to 17.04.2026.

¶1

WP Crl. No. 498 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

WP Crl. No. 498 of 2026

M.Vinothini

..Petitioner(s)

1. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City, E.V.K.Sampath Salai, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

¶11

1. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, J-8, Neelankarai Police Station, Neelankarari, Chennai - 600 115.

¶12

1. Sivaraman

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.Rajashekaran For Respondent(s): Mr. Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Ms.T.Harshana for R1 To R2

¶15

Order

¶16

In pursuance of the observations made by this Court on the previous hearing date, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted today that the

¶17

__________ Page1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

WP Crl. No. 498 of 2026

¶20

third respondent, aged about 76 years, is bedridden and in such a health condition that he is unable to move or speak. It was further submitted that the Inspector of Police, Neelankarai, visited the residence of the third respondent and confirmed the same.

¶21

Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner strongly opposed the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. It was submitted that, subsequent to the previous hearing, the petitioner was summoned on three occasions and each time she appeared before the second respondent police. However, she was allegedly made to wait for long hours and was further subjected to harassment. It is also alleged that she received a call demanding a sum of Rs.25 lakhs, with an assurance that the encroachment made by the third respondent would be removed only upon such payment; failing which, the encroachment would continue. The learned counsel further contended that certain Senior Police Officials are supporting the third respondent for ulterior motives. It was also alleged that a group operating in Neelankarai is aiding the third respondent, causing obstruction to the petitioner’s property, and demanding large sums of money, without which the encroachment would not be removed.

¶22

__________ Page2 of 4

¶23

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

¶24

WP Crl. No. 498 of 2026

¶25

In view of the serious allegations and counter-allegations, this Court

¶26

directs the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Adyar, to conduct a personal enquiry into the matter and file a status report regarding the same, including the petitioner’s complaint.

¶27