- Court
- High Court of Madras
- Decided
- 30 June 2026
- Bench
- G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
- Case no.
- WP Crl. 1278/2025
Judgment
ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to conduct a post-mortem on the body of the deceased D.R. Ashok Kumar by a team of doctors, including one doctor of the petitioner's choice, and to ensure that the entire procedure is videographed.
¶2The petitioner's son was married to one Kavitha on 06.06.2004, and out of their wedlock, two male children were born. They were living separately. While that being so, on 13.10.2025, the petitioner's elder grandson informed him about his son's poor health condition. The petitioner rushed to his son's house, where a doctor examined his son and declared that he had passed away three hours prior. The petitioner suspects that his son's death was unnatural, citing visible injury marks on the body, and suspects his daughter-in-law's involvement in the demise. Consequently, the petitioner lodged complaints before the fourth respondent police on 24.10.2025 and the second respondent Superintendent of Police on 25.10.2025. Since no FIR was registered, the Page3 of 5 petitioner filed this petition seeking a post-mortem of his son's body, which had been buried on 14.10.2025.
¶3On a perusal of the counter affidavit, it is seen that upon receipt of the complaint, the fourth respondent conducted a detailed enquiry by examining 14 witnesses. During the enquiry, the fourth respondent did not find any suspicious circumstances surrounding the demise of the petitioner's son, concluding that the death was purely due to health issues. Furthermore, while the petitioner lodged the complaint only on 24.10.2025, his son had passed away on
13.10.2025 and was buried on 14.10.2025. This indicates that the body was available for a day or two, and both the petitioner and his wife were very much present at their son's house, yet they did not choose to lodge a complaint at that time. The petitioner has failed to substantiate his allegations. Moreover, nearly eight months have elapsed since the burial, and as such, no useful purpose would be served by exhuming and conducting a post-mortem on the body now.
¶4In view of the above, the petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case to conduct a post-mortem on the body of the deceased. Consequently, the direction sought in this petition cannot be granted. Page4 of 5
¶5Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 30-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SMA To
¶1The District Collector, Collectorate Office, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.
¶2The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.
¶3The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.
¶4The Inspector of Police, B1 Police Station, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.
¶5The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. Page5 of 5
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. SMA 30-06-2026
Case details
Parties and counsel
Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN Rangaraju Akkumaran S/o.Akkumaran, No.HIG 325, TNHB, Vennampatti Road, Lakkiampuri Collectorate, Tamil Nadu-636 705. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The District Collector, Collectorate Office, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District. 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District. 4. The Inspector of Police, B1 Police Station, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District. 5. RangurajuAkkuramaran R5 impleaded as per order passed in W.M.P.Crl.No.716 of 2025 dated 30.06.2026 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd to 4th respondent to conduct a post-mortem on the body of the deceased D.R.Ashok Kumar by a team of doctors, including one doctor of the petitioners choice to ensure transparency, Page2 of 5 and that the entire procedure be videography and grant such other and further reliefs as this Honble Court. For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Krishnakumar For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar Counsel for Government For R1 to R4 Mr.M.Vignesh for R5
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.