The Chennai High Court has ordered departmental action against two inspectors of the Virugambakkam police station and directed an inquiry by a senior officer from outside the jurisdiction of the Koyambedu police district after allegations that a land-grabbing complainant was threatened to withdraw the complaint.
The case relates to an 1,800-square-foot plot in Kumaran Colony, Vadapalani, Chennai. According to the report, Surya complained that forged documents had been prepared in connection with the property. Police subsequently registered a case against three people, including Paldurai.
Paldurai later approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail. During the hearing, Justice N. Ramesh directed the Virugambakkam inspector to investigate the complaint and submit a report. When the matter returned for hearing, the court was informed that the inspector had allegedly threatened Surya to withdraw the complaint.
The court was also told that Surya had been arrested after a case was registered against him under the law dealing with atrocities against women, based on a complaint filed by Paldurai’s wife. The report did not provide further details about the allegations in that case or the circumstances of the arrest.
In the order, Justice Ramesh directed the Chennai city police commissioner to initiate departmental action against Virugambakkam inspectors Munisekar and Rajesh. The names of the two officers were stated in the report as the inspectors against whom action was ordered.
The judge also directed that the matter be investigated by an officer of joint commissioner rank from outside the Koyambedu police district. The investigating officer must submit a report to the court by December 4, according to the order cited in the report.
The proceedings place the handling of a property-related complaint under direct judicial scrutiny. Land disputes involving alleged forged documents can require coordination between the police, complainants, accused persons and the courts, while allegations of pressure to withdraw a complaint raise a separate question about the conduct of the investigating machinery. In this case, the High Court’s directions address both the alleged police conduct and the need for an inquiry outside the local district’s administrative boundary.
The court dismissed Paldurai’s anticipatory bail petition while issuing the directions concerning the two inspectors and the independent inquiry. Further action will depend on the departmental process initiated by the Chennai city police commissioner and the report to be filed by the joint commissioner-rank officer by the court-ordered deadline.
