J.Jayakumar v. The Director

ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to direct the first and second respondents to register a case against the fourth respondent and investigate the same by considering the petitioner's representation dated

03.05.2025.

¶2Briefly, the petitioner's case is that he is engaged in various legitimate local business activities, particularly in the fields of real estate and finance. He alleges that the fourth respondent, who previously served as a Police Constable and driver for several high-ranking officials and is currently a Special Sub-Inspector of Police (SSI) in the SBCID under the Page3 of 8 third respondent, has misused his official position to amass substantial illegal movable and immovable assets worth more than Rs.100 crores in his name and his wife's name. The petitioner further claims that the fourth respondent, through his relatives, solicited investments from local residents for real estate ventures and used muscle power to threaten those who questioned his activities. Additionally, the relatives of the fourth respondent have also indulged in several illegal activities and when the petitioner questioned them, they threatened the petitioner. Despite sending a representation dated 03.05.2025 to the first and second respondents seeking action against the fourth respondent and his relative named Selvaraj, no action has been taken, necessitating the filing of this Writ Petition.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although a representation was sent to the first and second respondents seeking action against the fourth respondent, for amassing wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income and against his relative Selvaraj and his wife, for threatening the petitioner, no action has been taken to date. Page4 of 8

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 has filed a status report. The relevant paragraphs of the same are extracted hereunder: "7. It is respectfully submitted that the action taken report was obtained from the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, in which it was stated that the petitioner was summoned by the police personnel of Chozhatharam Police Station for two times dated

20.12.2025 and 03.01.2026 but the petitioner has failed to attend the enquiry. But the Counter petitioner Tr.Selvaraj was enquired by Tr. VijiKumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sethiathoppu Sub Division, Cuddalore District and reported that when Tr.Selvaraj was doing real estate business, this petitioner was with him as a broker and the petitioner cheated an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and a CSR No.13/2025, was registered by the Chidambaram Police Station on the complaint of Tr.Selvaraj against this Petitioner Tr.Jayakumar, for having assaulted, when he asked to return the amount. In this regard enquiry was conducted by the said police, during the enquiry this petitioner had made apology to Tr.Selvaraj, hence the police instructed to seek remedy through civil forum in connection with money Page5 of 8 dispute and closed the petition. Further the petition dated 13.05.2025 of Tr.Jayakumar was closed since he failed to attend the enquiry.

¶8It is respectfully submitted that in connection with acquisition of disproportionate assets by Tr.Balaguru, SSI, Chennai, a Detailed Enquiry was registered in DE.No.14/2026/POL/SIC, dated 02.02.2026 based on the Vigilance Report of DVAC and the same is under enquiry."

¶5The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first and second respondents submitted that the complaint of the petitioner consists of two parts: the first concerns the fourth respondent's alleged amassing of wealth and the second pertains to the fourth respondent's relative Selvaraj, for issuing threats. She further submitted that the petitioner's complaint was taken up for inquiry. Based on the complaint, the petitioner was summoned by the Police on two occasions, specifically on 20.12.2025 and 03.01.2026. However, the petitioner failed to attend the inquiry. But the counter petitioner namely Selvaraj was inquired by one Vijikumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police. During the Page6 of 8 inquiry, Selvaraj stated that the petitioner had cheated him of Rs.10,00,000/-, for which he had filed a counter-complaint against the petitioner and a CSR.No.13 of 2025 was registered. In this regard, an inquiry was conducted by the Police and during the inquiry, the petitioner had apologised to Selvaraj and hence, the Police had instructed Selvaraj to seek remedy through civil forum in connection with money dispute and closed the petition. With regard to the petitioner's representation, the same was closed since he failed to attend the inquiry. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) further submitted that the inquiry into the acquisition of disproportionate assets by the fourth respondent, is ongoing.

¶6Recording the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) and the status report filed by her that action has been taken on the petitioner's representation, this Writ Petition (Criminal) stands closed. No costs. 08-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Sni Page7 of 8 To

1.The Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Alandur, Chennai-16.

2.The Superintendent of Police, North Range, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai-16.

3.The Director General of Police, DGP Office, No.601, Dr Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-60 0004.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Page8 of 8

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. Sni 08-04-2026

Page1 of 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA J.Jayakumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs. 1. The Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Alandur, Chennai-16. 2. The Superintendent of Police, North Range, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai-16. 3. The Director General of Police, DGP Office, No.601, Dr Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-60 0004. 4. Balaguru ..Respondent(s) Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents Page2 of 8 to register the case and investigate the same by considering the petitioner's representation dated 03.05.2025 against 4th respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mitesh, for Mr.M.Ragul Kousik For R1 to R3 : For R4 : Mr.S.Udayakumar, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) No appearance