Dismissed¶34

Saravanakumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC3 Feb 2026WP(MD)/28438/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police compensation claim; Article 226 mandamus; illegal detention and torture allegation against Inspector of Police, Thiruppalaikudi Police Station; DSP report dated 30.11.2022; withdrawal of writ petitions without liberty; refusal of liberty to file civil suit; charge sheet deletion of A1 to A5 based on A6 sworn statement; suspicion requiring reinvestigation; prima facie involvement in murder case; injured person video recording statement; A1 statement names referred more than 3 places; no costs; Ramanathapuram District; Madras High Court Madurai Bench.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petitions without any liberty to agitate before any other Court; no costs awarded. ¶34

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw the writ petitions without any liberty to agitate before any other Court; no costs awarded.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 6 to pay reasonable compensation for the alleged illegal deprivation of their life and liberty and torture caused by the seventh respondent's abuse of power, based on the DSP report dated 30.11.2022. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

Both petitioners' names were mentioned in the video recording statement of the aggrieved injured person, and were referred more than 3 places in the statement of A1, which prima facie indicates their involvement.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

This Court was not inclined to grant liberty to the petitioners to agitate the matter before any other Court, having prima facie arrived at the view that the initiation of proceedings was based on the allegation of illegal detention of the petitioners, whereas the petitioners are involved in a murder case.

¶28

Key takeaways

Since the affected/injured person and A1 had deposed about the petitioners' involvement, and yet the names of A1 to A5 were deleted from the charge sheet based on A6's sworn statement, it creates a certain degree of suspicion which required reinvestigation.ratio¶30
In the absence of any other supporting circumstances, no liberty was granted and the writ petitions were merely permitted to be withdrawn.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petitions (Art. 226) seeking mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 6 to compensate the petitioners for alleged illegal detention, torture and deprivation of life and liberty caused by the seventh respondent (Inspector of Police, Thiruppalaikudi Police Station) in abuse of power, on the basis of a Deputy Superintendent of Police report dated 30.11.2022. Counsel sought withdrawal with liberty to file a civil suit. The Court noted the petitioners' names appeared in the injured person's video-recorded statement and were referred more than 3 places in A1's statement, and that deletion of A1 to A5 from the charge sheet based on A6's sworn statement created suspicion requiring reinvestigation. Holding prima facie that the petitioners were involved in a murder case, the Court refused liberty, dismissed the petitions as withdrawn without liberty, and awarded no costs. (Krishnan Ramasamy, J., Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, 03.02.2026.)

¶1

W.P.(MD).Nos.28438 and 28669 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.02.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P(MD)Nos.28438 and 28669 of 2023

¶7

Saravanakumar ...Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.28438 / 2023 Ranjith @ Ranjithkumar ...Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.28669 / 2023

¶8

¶9

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. through its Secretary, (Home Department), Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶10

2.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

¶12

4.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

¶13

5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi Sub Division, Ramanathapuram District.

¶14

6.The Inspector of Police, Thiruppalaikudi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD).Nos.28438 and 28669 of 2023

¶18

7.Saravanan,

¶19

The Inspector of Police, Thiruppalaikudi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents in both the W.Ps.

¶20

PRAYER IN BOTH THE W.Ps.:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 6 to pay a reasonable compensation to the petitioners for the illegal deprivation of their life and liberty and for the torture undergone by the act of the seventh respondent in abuse of his power on the basis of the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police dated 30.11.2022.

¶21

For Petitioners in both the W.Ps.: Mr.B.Mahendrarajan
For R1 and R2 in W.P.(MD)No.28438 / 2023 : Mr.K.Balasubramani Special Government Pleader
For R1 and R2 in W.P.(MD)No.28669 / 2023 : Mrs.K.Malathi Additional Government Pleader
For R3 to R6 in both the W.Ps. : Mr.A.Albert James Government Advocate (Criminal side)
For R7 in both the W.Ps. : Mr.S.R.Suresh Kumar

¶22

COMMON ORDER

¶23

The matter was argued at length. The learned counsel for the petitioners

¶24

sought permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petitions, with liberty to

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD).Nos.28438 and 28669 of 2023

¶28

file a civil suit. However, this Court is not inclined to grant such liberty to the petitioners to agitate the matter before any other Court, as this Court has prima facie arrived at the view that, in the present case, the initiation of proceedings is based on the allegation of illegal detention of the petitioners and alleged deprivation of their life and liberty under protest, whereas the petitioners are involved in a murder case.

¶29

2 . Further, in the video recording statement of the aggrieved injured person, both the petitioners' names, namely, Saravanakumar and Ranjith @ Ranjith Kumar, were mentioned and in the statement of A1 also, their names

¶30

were referred more than 3 places, which prima facie indicates their involvement. However, based on the sworn statement of A6, the names of A1 to A5 were deleted from the charge sheet. When the affected/injured person as well as one of the accused (A1) have deposed about the involvement of the petitioners, and subsequently, based on A6’s sworn statement, the names of A1 to A5 were deleted, it creates a certain degree of suspicion, which required reinvestigation. In the absence of any other supporting circumstances, no liberty is granted, and the writ petitions are merely permitted to be withdrawn.

¶31

3/5

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD).Nos.28438 and 28669 of 2023

¶34

3 . Accordingly, these writ petitions stand dismissed as withdrawn

¶35

without any liberty. No costs.

¶36

NCC : Yes / No 03.02.2026 Index : Yes / No smn2