VERDICTUM.
IN
2025:MHC:1892
Crl.OP(MD)No.12539 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Crl.OP(MD)No.12539 of 2025
Kosamattam Finance Company,
Rep. by its
Regional Manager,
Ratheesrajan : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by
The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Karur District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Karur Town Police Station,
Karur District.
3.The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu.
4.The Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai. : Respondents
[R.3, R.4 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 07.08.2025]
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 12:18:54 pm )
VERDICTUM.IN
Crl.OP(MD)No.12539 of 2025
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS to direct the second
respondent to file the final report in Crime No.733 of 2023 within a
stipulated time limit.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Malaikani
For Respondents : Mr.P.Kottaichamy,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
for R.1, R.2
Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R.3, R.4
*****
ORDER
The petitioner / Finance Company has lodged a complaint before the
Karur Town Police Station alleging that it had been cheated by an accused
who pledged spurious gold to the extent of 418.4 grams, resulting in a loss
of Rs.16,80,900/-. Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.733 of
2023 was registered on 23.11.2023 for the offences punishable under
Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The present petition has been filed seeking a
direction to the respondent Police to conclude the investigation and file the
final report within a stipulated time.
2/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 12:18:54 pm )
VERDICTUM.IN
Crl.OP(MD)No.12539 of 2025
2.When the application came up for hearing on 25.07.2025, a
representation was made on behalf of the respondent Police that two
witnesses had been examined and that certain documents were sought
from the defacto complainant. It was further submitted that the defacto
complainant had not co-operated with the investigation and failed to
produce the requisite documents, thereby stalling the investigation.
3.The petitioner, on the contrary, alleged that the Police had failed to
act upon its complaint. In response, the learned Government Advocate
appearing for the Police reiterated that the petitioner had not co-operated.
When a specific query was posed by this Court regarding the documents
required from the defacto complainant, the Officer who had come to assist
the learned Government Advocate was unable to respond.
4.Therefore, this Court, by order dated 25.07.2025, directed the
respondent Police to produce copies of any summons, if issued, calling
3/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 12:18:54 pm )
VERDICTUM.IN
Crl.OP(MD)No.12539 of 2025
upon the petitioner to produce documents necessary for the investigation,
and adjourned the matter to 05.08.2025.
5.A report has now been filed by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Karur Town Sub-Division, stating that the investigation in Crime
No.733 of 2023 was in fact completed, and that the final report had been
filed on 11.01.2024. It is further stated that the final report has been
submitted for e-filing under LTN-20220001469C202500453 on 27.07.2025.
6.Curiously, this report is silent as to the documents that were earlier
claimed to be pending from the defacto complainant. Yet, on 25.07.2025, a
categorical representation was made before this Court that the
investigation was incomplete due to non-cooperation by the defacto
complainant and non-production of certain documents.
7.A communication dated 31.07.2025, addressed by the Inspector of
Police, Karur Town Police Station, to the Superintendent of Police, Karur,
4/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 12:18:54 pm )
VERDICTUM.IN
Crl.OP(MD)No.12539 of 2025
has also been placed on record. It reveals that two Special Sub-Inspectors of
Police, namely Tr. Palanichamy [1092] and Tr. Padmaseelan [900], were
deputed to appear before this Court and they had provided instructions in
a casual and uninformed manner without properly verifying the CD file.
Consequently, the Inspector of Police has recommended initiation of
disciplinary proceedings against the said officers for having furnished
vague and careless information to the Court.
8.Though it is now claimed that the investigation was completed and
the final report filed as early as 11.01.2024, it was submitted for e-filing only
on 27.07.2025, ie., after the order passed by this Court on 25.07.2025.
9.From the records, it is apparent that there were, in fact, no
outstanding documents required from the defacto complainant, contrary to
the representation made on 25.07.2025. The learned Government Advocate,
acting upon the instructions provided to him by the officials, submitted
that the delay in the investigation was due to the petitioner’s non-
5/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 12:18:54 pm )
VERDICTUM.IN
Crl.OP(MD)No.12539 of 2025
cooperation. Therefore, it is clear that a false representation was made
before this Court on that day.
10.Courts rely on the submissions made by both sides in order to
render just decisions. The State’s representations, particularly those
advanced by the learned Government Advocate, carry weight and are
presumed to be based on verified instructions. In the present case, it has
now come to light that the instructions given were inaccurate and
misleading.
11.Although disciplinary action is stated to have been proposed
against the two Special Sub-Inspectors of Police, this Court is not concerned
with individual disciplinary measures. What concerns this Court is the
manner in which the system functions. If accurate and authentic
information is not furnished by responsible officials, it becomes extremely
difficult for Courts to arrive at proper conclusions. Had the Investigation
Officer provided instructions directly to the learned Government Advocate,
6/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 12:18:54 pm )
VERDICTUM.IN
Crl.OP(MD)No.12539 of 2025
this miscommunication could have been avoided, and the two Special Sub-
Inspectors would not have been made scapegoats for the lapses of the
Investigation Officer.
12.Instructions are currently being provided in person by Police
Officers to the Government Law Officers. However, for effective
communication, the Department has already designated Liaison Officers
for each District, in addition to Liaison Officers attached to the offices of the
DGP, IG, and SP/CoP. Once applications are filed before this Court, they
are transmitted to the Office of the Public Prosecutor around 3.00 to 4.00
pm after being numbered. These applications are listed for hearing before
the Court on the third day.
13.The Office of the Public Prosecutor is equipped with a scanner,
and all such applications can be scanned and sent electronically to the
respective Police Stations. If the Liaison Officers and the Office of the Public
Prosecutor work in coordination, the investigating officers can receive
7/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 12:18:54 pm )
VERDICTUM.IN
Crl.OP(MD)No.12539 of 2025
copies of the applications on the very day of filing, between 8.00 pm and
10.00 pm. They will thus have an entire day to examine the matter and
furnish written instructions via email. A separate Police Station functions
within both the Madurai Bench and the Principal Seat. From there, the
Liaison Officers can take print out of the instructions received from
respective Police Stations for the applications listed each day, and furnish
the same to the Law Officers, thereby enabling them to represent the cases
without ambiguity or delay.
14.In the earlier days, when such technological conveniences were
unavailable, oral instructions and physical presence in Court were perhaps
inevitable. But the present digital ecosystem, comprising scanners, emails,
and instant messaging platforms, offers seamless, prompt and
authenticated communication. Continuing with outdated manual practices
despite the availability of these tools only adds to systemic delays.
8/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 12:18:54 pm )
VERDICTUM.IN
Crl.OP(MD)No.12539 of 2025
15.The sad reality is, even now, Police Officers are made to wait in the
Court premises for the entire day merely to provide oral instructions, often
without prior preparation. This results in a complete and unnecessary
drain of their productive time, which could otherwise be utilised in
progressing pending investigations.
16.This Court had an occasion to make similar observations in
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.3155 and 5962 of 2024, dated 16.05.2025, wherein it was
observed as under:
“23.This Court has also noticed that most of the time of the
investigation officers are spent for their appearance in the Court on the
applications filed by the accused. The Public Prosecutors have to restrict
from calling the investigation officers for each and every hearing. They
can collect the written instructions on the point of issue and they can
very well verify the same through video conference. The Secretary to
Government, Home Department shall ensure for providing video
conference facility to the Office of the Law Officers, at least at the High
Court and District Court level to preserve the time of the investigation
officers in the Court waiting unnecessarily from morning to evening.
The Public Prosecutor shall issue a Circular to that effect, restricting the
9/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 12:18:54 pm )
VERDICTUM.IN
Crl.OP(MD)No.12539 of 2025
law officers under the conditions in which they have to summon the
investigation officers to the Court.”
17.The learned State Public Prosecutor, who appeared before this
Court in another matter, has acknowledged this concern and submitted
that he had already addressed a letter dated 01.08.2025 to the Director
General of Police proposing certain guidelines to resolve the issue. A copy
of the said letter has also been placed before this Court. The said letter
recommends, among other things:
“a) Government Law Officers shall insist for the appearance of the
Police only in cases of public importance / sensitive cases, when their
physical presence is imperative and the Courts specifically direct so.
b) Government Law Officers shall strictly avoid summoning of
Police Officers in absolutely needless cases.
c) In Cities / Districts wherever Video Conference interaction
with the Police is suffice, the Commissioners of Police / Superintendents
of Police shall facilitate the Government Law Officers to opt for that
mode of interaction instead of physical appearance.
d) Depending upon the nature of cases, instruction sheets shall be
prepared by the Government Law Officers and the instruction sheets
shall be sent to the Police Station concerned by an electronic mode and
10/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 12:18:54 pm )
VERDICTUM.IN
Crl.OP(MD)No.12539 of 2025
the Police in turn shall fill up the instruction sheet and enclosing the
required supporting documents return the same to the Government Law
Officers concerned by mail or other available digital platform.
e) The instruction sheets filled up shall be duly authenticated by
the Officers concerned and shall be ensured that the details are in
complete form.
f) Video Conference facilities / sending of instruction sheets by
digital platform shall substantially reduce the time and energy spent by
the Police by travelling from the respective police Station to the
concerned Courts. The police can very well make use of this valuable
time in productive activity in the Police Station.
g) The Director General of Police is requested to ensure the
presence of Police, district-wise incharge for both at the Principal Seat at
Chennai and its Bench at Madurai and they shall be instructed to collect
mails from Police Station, verify the details and connected documents
and after scrutiny handover them to the Government Law Officer
concerned.
h) The Director General of Police / Head of Police Force shall
ensure that the "Court Cell Team" attached to the Directorate General
of Police shall monitor the work of the Police deputed District wise and
coordinate between them and the Government Law Officers at the High
Court of Madras at its Principal Seat at Chennai and its Bench at
Madurai.”
11/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 12:18:54 pm )
VERDICTUM.IN
Crl.OP(MD)No.12539 of 2025
18.The recommendations are sound and, if implemented in letter and
spirit, would avoid recurrence of what has occurred in the present case.
The officers visiting the Court to give instructions end up spending the
entire day, resulting in a gross waste of manpower. Had they remained at
their respective stations, valuable time could have been deployed toward
investigation in pending matters.
19.In this very application, the instructions required were minimal —
the stage of investigation; number of witnesses examined; documents
recovered; and likely time for conclusion. These could have been furnished
in three lines by the Investigation Officer. Yet, two officers were deputed,
who, without verifying the CD file, gave vague oral instructions, resulting
in a detailed order from this Court and subsequent initiation of disciplinary
proceedings.
20.This situation could have been entirely avoided, had the
instructions been furnished by the investigation officer via email or
12/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 12:18:54 pm )
VERDICTUM.IN
Crl.OP(MD)No.12539 of 2025
digitally authenticated formats, as envisioned by the Public Prosecutor’s
letter.
21.In view of the above, this Court suo motu impleads the Director
General of Police, Tamil Nadu, and the Secretary to Government, Home
Department, as party respondents to this application. Mr.T.Senthil Kumar,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor is to take notice on behalf of the
newly impleaded respondents.
22.The said authorities are requested to take appropriate policy
decisions on the issues discussed herein, in consultation with the State
Public Prosecutor. The recommendations contained in the Public
Prosecutor’s letter dated 01.08.2025 and the earlier directions of this Court
in Crl.OP(MD)Nos.3155 and 5962 of 2024 shall be duly considered.
23.It has been clarified by the Registry that Court Case Monitoring
System (CCMS), a digital platform, has already been introduced by the
13/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 12:18:54 pm )
VERDICTUM.IN
Crl.OP(MD)No.12539 of 2025
State to monitor and coordinate the handling of all categories of Court
cases involving the Government, including civil, criminal, writ, and public
interest matters. Once a case is filed before the High Court, the Registry
feeds the details into their system, which is then reflected in the CCMS
portal. Therefore, all cases filed before the High Court involving
Government entities would be readily available in bulk form ('dump')
within the CCMS portal.
24.However, unless filtered appropriately, these cases may not be
immediately visible to the concerned sub-department or officer. To ensure
effective and targeted access, it is suggested that the High Court Registry,
at the time of feeding the case details into CCMS, assign a unique
Department Code or Identifier corresponding to the name of the
Government Department, sub-department, or office involved in the
litigation. Such codes should be shared with the Government, so that login
credentials for each Department or officer are configured accordingly. By
doing so, when an officer logs into CCMS using their designated
14/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 12:18:54 pm )
VERDICTUM.IN
Crl.OP(MD)No.12539 of 2025
credentials, only those cases filed against or concerning their department or
designation will be visible, thereby streamlining accountability and
reducing administrative delays.
25.This Court is also informed that access to CCMS is currently
limited to the Secretariat, and not made available to other Officers of the
Government. If login access to CCMS is extended to other field-level
Officers, they can directly view such petitions upon filing, prepare timely
and accurate instructions, and transmit the same to the Government Law
Officers. This would avoid vague oral briefings, last-minute adjournments,
and the need to depute officers to Court merely to gather or confirm
procedural information. Until such access is decentralised and
operationalised, the intended efficiency of CCMS remains unrealised in
day-to-day case coordination.
26.Therefore, the fourth respondent / Home Secretary shall take
necessary steps to operationalise the CCMS platform at all levels. Access
15/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 12:18:54 pm )
VERDICTUM.IN
Crl.OP(MD)No.12539 of 2025
shall be extended to all the Officers of the Government, so that real-time
case data can be accessed without the need for physical appearance or oral
instruction. Such a step would not only ensure administrative efficiency,
but also preserve the time and resources of the government machinery.
27.The Home Secretary shall also work in tandem with the Registry of
this Court to ensure that appropriate Department Codes or Identifiers are
assigned at the time of case entry, so that CCMS access is effectively filtered
and mapped according to each department or designation. This
coordinated exercise would facilitate targeted visibility of cases and ensure
accountability in tracking and responding to court proceedings.
For compliance, post the matter on 29.08.2025.
Internet : Yes 07.08.2025
gk
16/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 12:18:54 pm )
VERDICTUM.IN
Crl.OP(MD)No.12539 of 2025
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Karur District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Karur Town Police Station,
Karur District.
3.The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu.
4.The Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai.
Note:
Mark a copy of this order to
1. The State Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
2. The Registrar General,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
3. The Registrar (IT),
Madras High Court, Chennai.
4. The Additional Registrar (IT),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
17/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 12:18:54 pm )
VERDICTUM.IN
Crl.OP(MD)No.12539 of 2025
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
Crl.OP(MD)No.12539 of 2025
07.08.2025
18/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 12:18:54 pm )
