K.Gowtham Vs The Commissioner of Police

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 to 4 to return the following original documents of the petitioner

¶17

_S.No. _	_Document No. _	*Year*	*S.R.O*
1.	354	1958	Thiruporur
2.	1464	1968	Thiruporur
3.	1317	1968	Thiruporur
4.	804	1993	Guduvancheri
5.	963	1993	Guduvancheri
6.	156	1994	Guduvancheri
7.	110	1995	Guduvancheri

¶18

which has been illegally impounded by the respondents 2 to 4.

¶19

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

¶20

WP Crl. No. 1393 of 2026

¶21

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Ilamuhil

¶22

For R1 to R3: Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to return the original documents of the petitioner, which are alleged to have

¶25

been retained by the said respondents.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents.

¶27

According to the petitioner, he is the owner of several properties and

¶28

had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one Ramesh for dealing with the same. The said Power Agent entered into a sale agreement with one Srinivasan

¶29

and received a sum of Rs.2.60 crores as advance sale consideration. Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties and neither was the sale transaction completed nor was the balance sale consideration paid. Consequently, both the petitioner and the said Srinivasan lodged complaints before the respondent police.

¶30

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

¶31

WP Crl. No. 1393 of 2026

¶32

It is the further case of the petitioner that, during the course of enquiry,

¶33

the parties arrived at a settlement, pursuant to which the advance amount was returned to Srinivasan. According to the petitioner, despite the settlement, certain original documents relating to the subject property have not been returned and are still in the custody of the second respondent.

¶34

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), on

¶35

instructions, submitted that a settlement had been arrived at between the petitioner and Srinivasan and the relevant settlement deed has also been produced before this Court. It is submitted that, pursuant to such settlement, all the documents were handed over to the petitioner and acknowledgment was also obtained from him. It is further submitted that the final payment was made by the petitioner to Srinivasan on 08.06.2025.

¶36

It is further seen from the records that Srinivasan had addressed a letter

¶37

to the second respondent stating that he was not inclined to pursue the complaint any further. In the said letter, he had also stated that certain amounts were due to him and reserved his right to work out his remedies before the competent forum.

¶38

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

¶39

WP Crl. No. 1393 of 2026

¶40

In view of the above submissions, this Court is of the considered view

¶41

that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature. The respondent police have no further role to play in the matter.

¶42

Recording the submissions made on either side, this writ petition is closed. However, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, it is open to him to approach

¶43

the competent Civil Court and seek appropriate relief in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶44

23-06-2026

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

WP Crl. No. 1393 of 2026

¶48

To

¶49