Dismissed¶25

S.K.Mukthar Ahamed v. The Commissioner of Police

Madras HC23 Feb 2026WP Crl./318/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, WP Crl. No. 318 of 2026, decided 23-02-2026 by A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J. Mandamus sought under Article 226 to restrain Taramani police from interfering in a money dispute concerning an alleged Rs.15 lakhs personal loan from State Bank of India, Tidal Park Branch, Chennai, based on petitioner's representation dated 02.02.2026. Dismissed: no complaint received or pending from the bank against the petitioner, representation premature, no costs.

What did the court decide?

In view of the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that no complaint has been received from the State Bank of India against the petitioner and that the petitioner's representation dated 02.02.2026 is premature, the Writ Petition (Criminal) stands dismissed, with no costs. ¶25

S.K.Mukthar Ahamed Vs The Commissioner of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP Crl. No. 318 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

WP Crl. No. 318 of 2026

S.K.Mukthar Ahamed

..Petitioner

The Commissioner of Police, Veperi, Chennai - 600 007.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, J-13, Taramani Police Station, Chennai - 600 113.

¶12

The Manager, State Bank of India, Tidal Park Branch, Chennai - 600 113.

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

Writ Petition (Criminal) is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent not to interfere in money disputes between the petitioner and third respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 02.02.2026.

¶15

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Senthil For Respondent(s): Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 & R2 Mr.R.Sreedhar for R3

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The present Writ Petition (Criminal) has been filed seeking a direction

¶18

to the second respondent not to interfere in money disputes between the petitioner and third respondent by considering the petitioner's representation

¶19

Page1 of 4

¶20

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

¶21

WP Crl. No. 318 of 2026

¶22

dated 02.02.2026.

¶23

2 . When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner has sent a representation on 02.02.2026 stating that he had received a personal loan of Rs.15 lakhs from the State Bank of India and the officials of the State Bank of India had threatened him that they will foist a case against him. He further submitted that as on date, no complaint has been received from the State Bank of India against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the representation of the petitioner itself is a premature one. He also submitted that when there is no complaint pending, there is no question of interference by the respondent police. Therefore, he sought dismissal of this Writ Petition (Criminal).

¶24

3 . In view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned

¶25

Additional Public Prosecutor, this Writ Petition (Criminal ) stands dismissed . No costs.

¶26

23-02-2026

¶27

Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No SRM

¶28

Page2 of 4

¶29

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