K.Gowtham v. The Commissioner of Police,

ORDER This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to return the original documents of the petitioner, which are alleged to have been retained by the said respondents.

¶2Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents.

¶3According to the petitioner, he is the owner of several properties and had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one Ramesh for dealing with the same. The said Power Agent entered into a sale agreement with one Srinivasan and received a sum of Rs.2.60 crores as advance sale consideration. Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties and neither was the sale transaction completed nor was the balance sale consideration paid. Consequently, both the petitioner and the said Srinivasan lodged complaints before the respondent police.

¶4It is the further case of the petitioner that, during the course of enquiry, the parties arrived at a settlement, pursuant to which the advance amount was returned to Srinivasan. According to the petitioner, despite the settlement, certain original documents relating to the subject property have not been returned and are still in the custody of the second respondent.

¶5Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), on instructions, submitted that a settlement had been arrived at between the petitioner and Srinivasan and the relevant settlement deed has also been produced before this Court. It is submitted that, pursuant to such settlement, all the documents were handed over to the petitioner and acknowledgment was also obtained from him. It is further submitted that the final payment was made by the petitioner to Srinivasan on 08.06.2025.

¶6It is further seen from the records that Srinivasan had addressed a letter to the second respondent stating that he was not inclined to pursue the complaint any further. In the said letter, he had also stated that certain amounts were due to him and reserved his right to work out his remedies before the competent forum.

¶7In view of the above submissions, this Court is of the considered view that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature. The respondent police have no further role to play in the matter.

¶8Recording the submissions made on either side, this writ petition is closed. However, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, it is open to him to approach the competent Civil Court and seek appropriate relief in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. 23-06-2026 skr Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To

1.The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram Commissionerate, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Guduvancheri Range, Guduvancheri, Chennai - 600 048.

3.The Inspector of Police, H2, Guduvancheri Police Station, Guduvancheri - 603 202. G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J. skr

23-06-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-06-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN K.Gowtham Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram Commissionerate, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Guduvancheri Range, Guduvancheri, Chennai - 600 048. 3.The Inspector of Police, H2, Guduvancheri Police Station, Guduvancheri - 603 202. 4.Rajiv Prince Aaron Respondent(s) PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 to 4 to return the following original documents of the petitioner S.No. Document No. Year S.R.O 1. 1958 Thiruporur 2. 1464 1968 Thiruporur 3. 1317 1968 Thiruporur 4. 1993 Guduvancheri 5. 1993 Guduvancheri 6. 1994 Guduvancheri 7. 1995 Guduvancheri which has been illegally impounded by the respondents 2 to 4. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Ilamuhil For R1 to R3: Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)