Disposed

K.Ravi v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC16 Jun 2026WP Crl.(MD)/3158/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged physical and verbal abuse against respondents 4 to 5 and inaction by police on his representation. Court directed the Inspector of Police to reopen CSR No.163 of 2026, conduct a discreet enquiry under Section 64 BNSS after hearing all parties, within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Inspector of Police, Chinalapatti PS to reopen CSR No.163 of 2026 and conduct discreet enquiry under S.64 BNSS within four weeks.

K.Ravi Vs The Superintendent of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3158 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.06.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3158 of 2026

K.Ravi

... Petitioner

Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu Represented by The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police Dindigul District.

¶11

The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul Rural Sub Division, Dindigul District

¶12

The Inspector of Police, Chinalapatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

¶13

Gopinath

¶14

Roseline

¶15

Selvaraj

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the respondent No.4 to 6 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 01.06.2026 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3158 of 2026

¶21

For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.D.Rajaboopathy (R1 to R3) Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to

¶24

3 to take appropriate action against the respondents 4 to 6 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 01.06.2026 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and his daughter were subjected to physical assault as well as verbal and emotional abuse at the hands of respondents 4 and 5. It was further submitted that, despite the petitioner having lodged a complaint with the respondent police in this regard, no action has been taken. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶26

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police on instruction submit submitted that on the complaint lodged against the petitioner, CSR 162 of 2026 was issued which culminated in laying an FIR in

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3158 of 2026

¶30

Crime No.81 of 2026 and on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, CSR No.

¶31

163 of 2026 was issued, for which, enquiry was conducted and the same was

¶32

closed on 27.04.2026, since it does not reveal any serious criminal act.

¶33

At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the medical records/medical summary pertaining to the petitioner's daughter, which indicate that she had undergone treatment consequent to an alleged assault. It was submitted that, based on the said incident, the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the respondent police. However, the complaint was subsequently closed without any further action.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel on either sides and carefully perused the materials placed before this Court. Since no adverse order is proposed to be passed against the private respondents, notice to them is dispensed with.

¶35

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the third respondent police is directed to reopen the petitioner's representation dated 01.06.2026, which was registered in CSR No.163 of 2026 and conduct a discreet enquiry in this regard, after issuing summons to the petitioner and the private respondents and also other concerned parties, under Section 64 of the

¶36

3/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3158 of 2026

¶39

BNSS, and conclude the same, after affording an opportunity of hearing to

¶40

them, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41

With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶42

16.06.2026

¶43

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No sm

¶44

4/6

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3158 of 2026

¶47

TO :-

¶48

The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police Dindigul District.

¶49

The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul Rural Sub Division, Dindigul District

¶50

The Inspector of Police, Chinalapatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

¶51

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶52

5/6

¶53

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

¶54

W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3158 of 2026

¶55

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶56

¶57

Order made in W.P.Crl.(MD)No.3158 of 2026

¶58

Dated 16.06.2026

¶59

6/6

¶60

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

K.Ravi v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ravi v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karthikeyan Vs The Superintendent of Police

Padmanaban Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Lalapet

Chelladurai Vs The Superintendent of Police

Akr.Jeya Prakash Vs The Superintendent of Police

Ashok Murugan Vs Ramkumar

Gajendran Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Sub Inspector Of Police, Thirumayam