R.Alzan Zaheen v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By,

ORDER Seeking to direct the 3rd respondent to take action on the C.S.R.No.462 of 2025 on the basis of Petitioner's complaint dated 09.08.2025, this writ petition is filed.

¶2The petitioner is the wife, who had lodged a complaint as against her husband, for which C.S.R.No.462 of 2025 was issued. However, no further action has been taken by the 2nd respondent police, despite the petitioner being a doctor by profession. She had lodged a complaint with respect to the dowry harassment suffered by her in the hands of her husband.

¶3In this regard, the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) submitted that already a full round enquiry was duly conducted by the 2nd respondent police and further the parties were directed to appear before the Social Welfare Office for further enquiry, which is routinely conducted by the Social Welfare Officer, from where a report has been obtained by the 2nd respondent police that the respective parties failed to appear before the Social Welfare Officer. Recording the same, already the matter has been closed.

¶4Heard the learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.

¶5A careful reading of the materials placed before me would reveal that the marriage between the petitioner and her husband, namely, Abdul Ansari Ghani had involved 350 sovereign gold, 2 Crore worth diamond necklace, car worth about Rs.30,00,000/-, Sridhana articles worth about Rs.5,00,000/- and the marriage was solemnized in a grand and formal manner, involving substantial expenditure amounting to several Crores. It is also claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that part of the jewellery is still with the husband. However, the 2nd respondent police had closed the same without proper investigation. It is also brought to my notice that consequent to the closure of the matter by the 2nd respondent police, the husband has been emboldened to institute a civil suit for damages, seeking compensation of Rs.1 Crore from the petitioner wife. This Court is of the considered opinion that the All Women Police Stations should deal with matrimonial dispute with much patience. The complaint, which was received on 09.08.2025, came to be closed on 13.03.2026. It is also seen that the Social Welfare Officer had submitted a report to the 2nd respondent police that due to the non-cooperation of the petitioner, they were not able to submit a proper report and the records reveal that on 05.11.2025, the petitioner's case was forwarded to the Social Welfare Officer and the same had returned without enquiry on 11.11.2025. The same itself is sufficient to prove the haste with which the Social Welfare Officer returned the matter without conducting an inquiry, as if the petitioner had never cooperated. However, the report of the Social Welfare Officer do not reflect as to how many attempts they have made to require the petitioner to appear before them. It is also seen that within two days from the date of receiving the report from the Social Welfare Office, the 2nd respondent police had closed the case on

13.03.2026. Such an exercise is unwarranted. The 2nd respondent police ought to have conducted a proper enquiry before proceeding to close the same in a hurried manner. The 2nd respondent police is directed to reopen the case, conduct an enquiry properly and take necessary steps within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and also appraise the progress in the investigation every Friday to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is directed to monitor the same and ensure conclusion of the investigation as expeditiously as possible within a period of four (4) weeks. It is made clear that it is not necessary to forward the case further before the Social Welfare Officer since such a report does not have any legal value.

¶6With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.

¶7Post on 21.04.2026 for reporting compliance.

16.03.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Note : Issue order copy on 17.04.2026. gbg To

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manapparai, Trichy District.

3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Manapparai, Trichy District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

L.VICTORIA GOWRI,J gbg

W.P.Crl(MD)No.1476 of 2026

16.03.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 16.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI W.P.Crl(MD)No.1476 of 2026 R.Alzan Zaheen ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manapparai, Trichy District. 3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Manapparai, Trichy District. ... Respondents PRAYER :-Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to take action on C.S.R.No.462 of 2025 on the basis of Petitioner's complaint dated 09.08.2025 in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P reported in 2014(2) SCC 1. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Althaf Sheriff for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondents : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate(Civil Side)