Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Arumugam Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Home
Madras HC
2026
Arumugam Vs The Government of Tamil NaduArumugam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Disposed¶33

Arumugam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC20 Jul 2026WP Crl./570/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Arumugam v. Government of Tamil Nadu & others, W.P.Crl.No.570 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Madras, decided 20.07.2026 by G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J. Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 seeking police enquiry and action on representation dated 02-01-2026 against Sakthivel and Muthusamy (Pc 110); petition closed after Government reported the petitioner had withdrawn/would not proceed with the complaint before the Inspector of Police, Pennagaram Division; liberty reserved to file a private complaint; no costs. Keywords: writ petition criminal, mandamus, complaint closed, withdrawal of complaint, private complaint liberty, Dharmapuri/Pennagaram police, Sub Registration officials.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed on recording the Government's submission that the complaint stood closed at the petitioner's own instance; the petitioner was granted liberty to lodge a private complaint in accordance with law; no order as to costs.

Why is it important?

Recording the Government counsel's submission that the petitioner had himself stated before the fifth respondent that he did not want to proceed with the complaint, and that the complaint was closed, this Court closed the writ petition. ¶32

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The writ petition was closed on recording the Government's submission that the complaint stood closed at the petitioner's own instance; the petitioner was granted liberty to lodge a private complaint in accordance with law; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 1 to 4 should be directed to enquire into the matter and take appropriate action against Sakthivel (office of Sub Registration) and Muthusamy (Pc 110) based on the petitioner's representation dated 02-01-2026.

Court's answer

Recording the Government counsel's submission that the petitioner had himself stated before the fifth respondent that he did not want to proceed with the complaint, and that the complaint was closed, this Court closed the writ petition.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is at liberty to lodge a private complaint, if so advised, in accordance with law; there shall be no order as to costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.), W.P.Crl.No.570 of 2026, decided 20.07.2026: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sought a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to enquire into the petitioner's representation dated 02-01-2026 and take action against Sakthivel (office of Sub Registration) and Muthusamy (Pc 110). On instruction, Government counsel submitted that the petitioner had himself stated before the fifth respondent (Inspector of Police, Pennagaram Division) that he did not want to proceed with the complaint, and the complaint was closed. Recording that submission, the Court closed the writ petition, granted the petitioner liberty to lodge a private complaint if so advised in accordance with law, and made no order as to costs.

A

W.P.Crl.No.570 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.07.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

W.P.Crl.No.570 of 2026

Arumugam

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Director General of Police, Chennai.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pennagaram Division, Dharmapuri.

5.The Inspector of Police, Pennagaram Division, Dharmapuri.

6.The Sub Registrar, Office of Sub Registration, Palacode, Dharmapuri.

7.The Sub Registrar, Office of Sub Registration, Bhavani.

Page 1 of 4

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

W.P.Crl.No.570 of 2026

8.T.Venkatesan 9.Sampuranam 10.Sakthivel 11.Muthusamy ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ petition(Crl.) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st to 4th respondents to enquire into the issue and take appropriate action against the said 1.Sakthivel office of Sub Registration, 2.Muthusamy Pc 110 based on the representation dated 02-01-2026

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Selvam

For Respondents For R1 to 5 : Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

For R8, 9 & 11 : Mr.K.Selvakumar For R10 : Mr.P.A.Arvinthviveks

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the 1st to 4th respondents to enquire into the issue and take appropriate action against the said 1.Sakthivel office of Sub Registration, 2.Muthusamy Pc 110 based on the representation dated 02-01-2026

On instruction, the learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) appearing for respondents 1 to 5 submitted that the Page 2 of 4

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

W.P.Crl.No.570 of 2026

petitioner himself stated before the fifth respondent that he did not want

to proceed with the complaint and as such, the complaint was closed.

Recording the above submission, this writ petition is closed.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to lodge a private complaint, if so advised, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

20.07.2026

Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order lok

Page 3 of 4

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

W.P.Crl.No.570 of 2026

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

lok

To

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Director General of Police, Chennai. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri. 4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pennagaram Division, Dharmapuri. 5.The Inspector of Police, Pennagaram Division, Dharmapuri. 6.The Sub Registrar, Office of Sub Registration, Palacode, Dharmapuri. 7.The Sub Registrar, Office of Sub Registration, Bhavani. 8.The Public Prosecutor, High court of madras

W.P.Crl.No.570 of 2026

20.07.2026

Page 4 of 4

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

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether respondents 1 to 4 should be directed to enquire into the matter and take appropriate action against Sakthivel (office of Sub Registration) and Muthusamy (Pc 110) based on the petitioner's representation dated 02-01-2026.¶26
The court held
Recording the Government counsel's submission that the petitioner had himself stated before the fifth respondent that he did not want to proceed with the complaint, and that the complaint was closed, this Court closed the writ petition.ratio¶32

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶21

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
The petitioner had made a representation dated 02-01-2026 to respondents 1 to 4 seeking enquiry and action against Sakthivel (office of Sub Registration) and Muthusamy (Pc 110), which forms the basis of the writ petition.¶21
Prior proceeding
Government counsel stated on instruction that the petitioner himself told the fifth respondent (Inspector of Police, Pennagaram Division) that he did not want to proceed with the complaint, and the complaint was accordingly closed.¶31

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Arumugam¶7
M.Selvam
respondent
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.¶10
R.Ganesh Kumar
respondent
The Director General of Police, Chennai.¶11
R.Ganesh Kumar
respondent
The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.¶12
R.Ganesh Kumar
respondent
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pennagaram Division, Dharmapuri.¶13
R.Ganesh Kumar
respondent
The Inspector of Police, Pennagaram Division, Dharmapuri.¶14
R.Ganesh Kumar
respondent
The Sub Registrar, Office of Sub Registration, Palacode, Dharmapuri.¶15
respondent
The Sub Registrar, Office of Sub Registration, Bhavani.¶16
respondent
T.Venkatesan¶20
K.Selvakumar
respondent
Sampuranam¶20
K.Selvakumar
respondent
Sakthivel¶20
P.A.Arvinthviveks
respondent
Muthusamy¶20
K.Selvakumar

Coram

AI extract

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 20 Jul 2026 · July
Registered: 11 Mar 2026
Case no.: WP Crl./570/2026
CNR: HCMA010465082026
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: G.k. Ilanthiraiyan
Disposal: CLOSED
Case type: W.P.Crl.

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from G.k. Ilanthiraiyan

S. Baskar Vs State Rep By its The Inspector of Police
17 Jul 2026
Alpha Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Inspector of Police
17 Jul 2026
Mohammed Vadhut Vs State by the Inspector of Police
17 Jul 2026
A.Arunkumar Vs The Home Secretary
20 Jul 2026
P.Gunasekaran Vs Union Bank of india
20 Jul 2026
K.Aravinthan Vs the General Manager
20 Jul 2026

Cite this judgement

Arumugam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, WP Crl./570/2026 (MAD), decided on 20 July 2026.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226

View all statutes

Procedural history2

The petitioner had made a representation dated 02-01-2026 to respondents 1 to 4 seeking enquiry and action against Sakthivel (office of Sub Registration) and Muthusamy (Pc 110), which forms the basis of the writ petition.
Government counsel stated on instruction that the petitioner himself told the fifth respondent (Inspector of Police, Pennagaram Division) that he did not want to proceed with the complaint, and the complaint was accordingly closed.

View full history

Bench / Coram

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Parties & counsel