VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

A.Anwar Ali v. The Commissioner of Police,

DISPOSED OF
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
17 April 2026
Bench
M. Nirmal Kumarauthor
Case no.
WP Crl. 878/2026

Judgment

ORDER The writ petition has been filed to direct either the 1st and 2nd respondent to enquire into the complaint / representation dated 02.02.2026 made by 2nd petitioner to the 1st respondent, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Honble Court.

2.The second petitioner, on 02.02.2026 sent a representation to the Commissioner of Police, Tambaram Commissionerate stating that making certain allegations against the Sub-Inspector of Police and Constable attached to Thirumudivakkam Police Station but no action has been taken. Hence, the present petition.

3.The contention of the petitioners is that the first petitioner's father and the second petitioner's father-in-law, Akbar Ali abusing and threatening them, for which, on 03.11.2025 made a emergency phone complaint(181) to the police to take action against the said Akbar Ali but not taken any action. On the Page3 of 5 contrary, petitioners called for enquiry on 08.11.2025. The first petitioner appeared before the Thirumudivakkam Police, where, during enquiry, the Sub Inspector of Police and the Constable forced the first petitioner to settle the property derived from the first petitioner's grandmother in favour of Akbar Ali, and they were forced to sign in several papers. Hence, a complaint lodged but no action taken.

4.The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 strongly opposed the petitioners' contention and submitted that first petitioner's father Akbar Ali lodged a complaint and CSR.No.1310 of 2025 was assigned on 10.11.2025. Akbar Ali's mother had settled the property to her two grandsons one is the first petitioner and another one is his brother. Akbar Ali was taken care by his sons. Since the mother of the first petitioner and wife of Akbar Ali died and there was no one to take care of Akbar Ali hence, he married another lady, objecting to the same, Akbar Ali chased out from the house, for his subsistence and survival, Akbar Ali lodged a complaint seeking share in the property. CSR was enquired and thereafter, closed. There is no reason for the police to call the petitioners and forcing them to settle the property favouring Akbar Ali. The petitioners on misconception made allegations against the police there is no force or coercion exerted by the S.I. and the constable. Page4 of 5 Recording the same, the writ petitioner(crl.) is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 17-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order sms To

¶1The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram Commissionerate, Tambaram.

¶2The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Tambaram Range, New Market Area, Tambaram West, Chennai.

¶3Inspector of Police, T24, Thirumudivakkam Police Station, Kundrathur, Chennai-600 069.

¶4The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. WPoCrl.oNo.o878oofo2026 M.NIRMALoKUMAR,oJ. sms WPoCrl.oNo.o878oofo2026 17-04-2026 Page5oofo5

Case details

Parties and counsel

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR and WPMP.Crl.No.294 of 2026 1. A.Anwar Ali S/o.Akbar Ali, 2. Subhany W/o.Anwar, 3. Both are residing at No.17, Sri Devi Karumariamman Nagar, Anjugam Nagar, Nandambakkam, Kundrathur, Chennai-600 009. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram Commissionerate, Tambaram. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Tambaram Range, New Market Area, Tambaram West, Chennai. 3. Inspector of Police, T24, Thirumudivakkam Police Station, Kundrathur, Chennai-600 069. 4. Manigandan (Sub Inspector of Police), T24, Thirumudivakkam Police Station, Kundrathur, Chennai-600 069. 5. Sendhil(Constable) T24, Thirumudivakkam Police station, Kundrathur, Chennai-600 069. ..Respondent(s) Page2 of 5 PRAYER: The writ petition (crl.) filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing either the 1st and 2nd respondent to enquire into the complaint / representation dated 02.02.2026 made by 2nd petitioner to the 1st respondent, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Honble Court. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Sai Shankar For Respondent(s): Mr.R.VINOTH RAJA Govt.Advcoate (CRL. SIDE) for R1 to R3

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.