WP Crl./973/2026 of S. Raghuraman Vs The Inspector of Police

WP Crl. No. 973 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR WP Crl. No. 973 of 2026 S. Raghuraman S/o.D.S.Subramanyam, No. 108/46, Padmanaba Nagar, 5/77, Vth Street, Adayar, Chennai 600 020. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Inspector of Police J-5 Sasthri Nagar, Chennai 600 090. Tamilnadu. 2. Shiny Andrea D/o.Meenakshi, 6, Anna Salai,NGR Colony, Little Mount, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to produce the original CCTV Footage dated 25.03.2026 from 11.00 a.m. to 5.30 based on petitioner representation dated 02.04.2026 before this Court. For Petitioner(s): Mr.L.K.Charles Alexander For Respondent-1: Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Assisted by Ms.Harshana, T. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Crl. No. 973 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 ORDER The Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to produce the original CCTV Footage dated 25.03.2026 from 11.00 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. based on petitioner’s representation dated 02.04.2026 before this Court. 2.The petitioner had sent a representation on 02.04.2026 against one Shiny Andrea. The petitioner and his wife, a senior citizens, have been lured by one Shiny Andra and they borrowed money from their friends and deposited a sum of Rs.9 lakhs to her account presuming that the same would be returned back. But she failed to do so, on the other hand, she made allegations as though the petitioner misbehaved with her. It is also seen that the said Andrea married one Mohammed Ajmal on 08.05.2018 and the marriage was registered with registration department at Saidapet vide certificate dated 21.06.2018. She had a boy friend named Karthick and due to some dispute with him, she lodged a complaint with the police and F.I.R. was also registered. She came to the police station with her husband when her relationship with Karthick was broken. The Inspector of Police never considered the background of the said Andrea and WhatsApp messages and threatening messages sent by Andrea. Further, the police also now exerting pressure on the petitioner as though the petitioner accepted to pay Rs.6 lakhs and he failed to pay. Hence, the petitioner sought for the CCTV footages of the police station from 11.00 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. on 25.03.2026 at the earliest for his defence. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Crl. No. 973 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that complaint has been given by counter petitioner Andrea against the petitioner and also produced relevant materials complaining that petitioner received an amount of Rs.15 lakhs. Since the petitioner appeared and accepted that he would pay the amount to Andrea he was let off. Now it has been projected as though the petitioner unnecessarily detained, harassed and he has been forced to pay Andrea. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner refuted the same stating that though the said Andrea complaining that petitioner had borrowed Rs.15 lakhs, the petitioner had paid Rs.9 lakhs through her bank account and only Rs.6 lakhs to be paid. 5.From the submission, it seen that there is a complaint and counter complaint. Hence, the respondent police is directed to consider both the complaints and take appropriate action in this regard. 6.With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 27-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RSI https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Crl. No. 973 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. RSI To 1. The Inspector of Police J-5 Sasthri Nagar, Chennai 600 090. Tamilnadu. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. WP Crl. No. 973 of 2026 27-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis