(Prayer :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st and 2nd respondent to transfer the investigation to any other Investigation Officer / Deputy Superintendent of Police except the third respondent pertaining to the Crime No. 86 of 2026 on the file of the fourth respondent and to investigate and file 'final report' within a time frame as pleased by this Court. )

1. The petitioner, who is a victim in Atrocities case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1987, comeup with this Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to transfer the investigation to any other Investigation Officer in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police, except the third respondent, pertaining to the Crime No. 86 of 2026 on the file of the fourth respondent and to investigate and file final report within a time frame.

2. The reason assigned by the petitioner in the affidavit in support of the writ petition is as that he belong to Sakkiliar Community, which is classified as Scheduled Community as per the Government of Tamil Nadu. He is a JCB driver working under one K.Thavamani of Thanichiyam Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District for the past 15 years. The said K.Thavamani owns a patta land in S.No.219/7A comprising an extent of 30 cents of nanja land and also having tenancy right over the neighbouring lands to an extent of about 8 Acres, which belongs to one R.Duraisamy a Retired Deputy Inspector General.

3. The petitioner understand that there is a civil dispute regarding the tenancy right between K.Thavamani and the R.Duraisamy. Due to the enmity, the said R.Duraisamy repeatedly instigating his henchman one M.Raja of Thanichiyam Village to interfere with the peaceful cultivation by K.Thavamani and also preventing the petitioenr from executing the agricultural operations. In order to wreck vengeance, on 01.08.2024 the said R.Duraisamy and M.Raja had forcibly prevented the petitioner from proceeding with the preliminary agricultural operations and assaulted with deadly weapons causing grievance injuries and scolded him with abuse of words pointing out his community of Sakkilian and criminally intimidated him. For the said occurrence, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the fourth respondent for which C.S.R. only issued.

4. In the said incident, instead of registering the case on the petitioner's complaint, Anandaraj, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samayanallur, viz., the 3rd respondent instructed the 4th respondent to register a case against the petitioner and his employer K.Thavamani in Crime No.227 of 2024, based on a fabricated complaint lodged by the said Raja. Then final report filed to the said crime number and the same is taken on file as C.C.No.63 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti. Even then, neither the third respondent nor the fourth respondent come forward to register a case on the petitioner's complaint dated 01.08.2024. Thereby, the petitioner preferred a private complaint before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai in Cr.M.P.No.3074 of 2024 in new Cr.M.P.No.272 of 2025 and after examination of all witnesses on the petitioner's side, the case is pending for disposal.

5. Thereafter, on 02.07.2025 one Sumathi, who is the wife of the said R.Duraisamy, and the said M.Raja along with identifiable unnamed hooligans trespassed into the land while the petitioner was working in the said field and the said Sumathi prevented the petitioner from ploughing the land and further, has gone to the extent of throwing her chappals on the petitioner's face with abusing words particularly pointing out his community of Sakkiliyar and accomplices Raja and others chased the petitioner with machete and wooden logs and further criminally intimidated the petitioner. In this aspect, they fabricated a false complaint against the petitioner and the said Thavamani in Crime No. 199 of 2025 belatedly on 19.07.2025, with the instigation of R.Duraisamy. The petitioner lodged a complaint dated 08.07.2025 to the Chief Minister Cell and also to higher police officials, including the respondents, but, no action was taken.

6. Instead of pursuing with the petitioner's complaint the third respondent summoned the petitioner on several occasions under the guise of enquiry, the third respondent and his subordinates unduly coerced the petitioner to withdraw the complaint and private complaint lodged against the said R.Duraisamy and M.Raja failing which to register similar cases in future and further going on harassing the petitioner's old aged mother frequently only with vested interest on extraneous reasons. In this regard, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition in W.P.Crl.(MD).No.l338 of 2025 before this Court submitting that the third respondent has personal interest and prejudicial acts and sought for a prayer to register FIR on the petitioner's complaint on 02.07.2025.

7. The said Writ Petition was disposed of with an observation to approach the Trial Court. Consequently, the petitioner preferred a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, in which the same was returned with a direction to submit before the III Additional Sessions Court, Madurai. On representing the complaint before the III Additional Sessions Court (PCR), Madurai and the same is under scrutiny by the concerned Court. Further, on 20.03.2026, the said R.Duraisamy and his henchman M.Raja along with one Chinnakalai assaulted the petitioner with deadly weapons, causing grievous injuries for which the petitioner lodged complaint before the fourth respondent, which was registered in Crime No.86 of 2026 against the said R.Duraisamy, M.Raja, Chinnakalai and others, for the offences under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS and Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act and the investigation is pending.

8. After registration of the said F.I.R in Crime No.86 of 2026 and the law was set in motion in which the third respondent, who is the designated authority for investigating the offences relating to SC/ST Act, freely allowed the accused to loiter in and around Vadipatti Taluk with hooligans with an intention to murder the petitioner and his employer K.Thavamani. The fourth respondent, who is subordinate to the third respondent obliging the direction of the third respondent and has not made any further progress including the arrest of all three accused.

9. It is learnt that on the instructions of the third respondent, another counter case was registered in Crime No.87 of 2026 against the petitioner's employer K.Thavamani and his relatives, in which the fourth respondent has been searching for those accused without any real occurrence as alleged.

10. When the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(Crl). (MD).No.l338 of 2025, leveled serious allegations against the third respondent in his personal capacity, who is acting against the petitioner with vested interest and also in a prejudicial manner and violating the prevailing laws in force. The third respondent recording statements from his stock witnesses and other persons supplied by the said R.Duraisamy only with an intention to close the complaint as “mistake of fact”.

11. It is learnt that the said R.Duraisamy and the third respondent entered into a private land deal with regard to the disputed land of 8 Acres that if the third respondent recovered the possession of the petitioner's employer K.Thavamani, the said R.Duraisamy promised to execute sale deed of one acre of land to the Benami persons as nominated by the third respondent and the said deal is the predominant interest on the part of the third respondent beyond the powers of a Deputy Superintendent of Police.

12. On the instigation of the said R.Duraisamy on 19.04.2026 at about 6.00 p.m. his henchman M.Raja created a commotion in an inebriated condition in front of the house of the said K.Thavamani and gone to the extent of attempting to stab the daughter-in-law of the said K.Thavamani only with a fond hope that there is no case registered against him by the 4th respondent as instructed by the third respondent. In such event, the third respondent deviated from his official capacity and facilitated all crimes through the said R.Duraisamy and his henchman M.Raja along with rowdy elements always in the custody of R.Duraisamy which is purely a malafide attitude of a Government Servant as Deputy Superintendent of Police.

13. In the above circumstances, there is no scope for a fair investigation at the hands of the third respondent, particularly if the entire case bundle pertaining to Crime No. 86 of 2026 on the file of the fourth respondent is entrusted to the third respondent. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 27.03.2026 to respondents 1 and 2, as well as to the Chief Minister’s Special Grievance Cell, praying for a change of the investigating agency. Since no action has been taken by any of the respondents, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

14. When this writ petition was heard by this Court on 30.04.2026, noting the brief facts and submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and having found that there is a prima facie case to stay the investigation conducted by the third respondent has been stayed as interim stay till 19.06.2026. Further the third respondent was directed to file an explanation before this Court on 19.09.2026.

15. From the records reveal that the third respondent did not file his explanation before this Court on 19.06.2026 and thereby, the interim order already granted was extended till 29.06.2026. Even as per the orders dated 29.06.2026, no such explanation offered by the third respondent and thereby, interim stay extended till 09.07.2026 and list the matter on 09.07.2026. Even as per the orders dated 09.07.2026, no such explanation offered by the third respondent and then the proceedings was adjourned to 21.07.2026 and the earlier stay was extended further. On 22.07.2026, since no explanation offered by the third respondent, this Court directed the third respondent to appear before this Court on 03.09.2026 and the interim stay already granted is extended.

16. Thereafter, the matter listed before this Court on 07.09.2026 and when the matter was taken up for consideration on 07.09.2026, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the third respondent already offered explanation on 27.07.2026, i.e. after the earlier order dated 22.07.2026. But, there is no mention by the Government Advocate whether the third respondent appeared before this Court on 07.09.2026 or not. The case facts reveal from the affidavit of the petitioner that the third respondent has colluded with the rival party of the petitioner, i.e. R.Duraisamy, the then Deputy Inspector General of Prison, thereby, having apprehension transfer of investigation petition has been filed.

17. Having found that there is a prima facie case, this Court directed the third respondent to offer his explanation on the allegations levelled by the petitioner as per the first order dated 30.04.2026 and giving time nearly 50 days and the matter was posted on 19.06.2026. Even then, four hearing date of 19.06.2026, followed on 29.06.2026 and thereafter on 09.07.2026, the third respondent did not offer his explanation which shows insubordination and non compliance of the order of this Court. When the matter was adjourned to 03.09.2026 by an order dated 29.07.2026 after four orders passed by this Court, then only the third respondent offered his explanation and filed it before this Court on 27.07.2026. When the Deputy Superintendent of Police has shown insubordination to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, one can well appreciate the manner in which he has acted and continues to act, particularly in the context of the petitioner’s allegation that the third respondent, who is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, has colluded with the alleged accused in the petitioner’s case is not ruled out.

18. When the matter was heard on 07.09.2026, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the various allegations levelled by the petitioner against the third respondent had been denied by the third respondent in his written explanation. However, without going into the merits of the allegations, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the investigation may be transferred from the third respondent and entrusted to any other competent officer to be nominated by the second respondent. Accordingly, the second respondent may nominate any other competent officer in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct the investigation in Crime No. 86 of 2026 on the file of the fourth respondent.

19. When the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) made such a submission, even then, on 07.09.2026, there was no reference or indication as to whether the third respondent was present before this Court in compliance with the earlier direction of this Court. Since the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the investigation may be transferred from the third respondent to some other officer, as may be nominated by the second respondent, the same may be considered in the interest of a fair and impartial investigation.

20. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the allegations levelled by the petitioner against the third respondent is formally denied, but, if the third respondent contested, this Court may pass suitable direction against the third respondent and finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) conceded the prayer to transfer the investigation from the third respondent to some other officer from the orders of the second respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this petition may be allowed and investigation may be transferred.

21. Considering the subsequent submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), whereby he conceded to the transfer of the investigation from the third respondent to some other officer, despite the serious allegations made by the petitioner against the third respondent, which have been formally denied by the third respondent in paragraphs 11 to 14 of his explanation, the said allegations and the corresponding denial may form part of the record, without going into the merits thereof any further. In view of the concession made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), the prayer for transfer of the investigation is accordingly considered.

22. The case facts reveal that two private complaints filed by the petitioner before the III Additional Sessions Court, Madurai, which is the designated Court of Special Court under the SC/ST Act, in Crl.M.P.No.272 of 2025 (old Crl.M.P.No.3074 of 2024) and another private complaint subsequently filed before the said Court, are pending, one for enquiry and the other for scrutiny, therefore, the said Court is directed to expedite the proceedings in both the complaints and dispose of the same at the earliest, preferably within two months in respect of the former case and within four months in respect of the latter case. In the said proceedings, the allegations made by the petitioner are to be tested as to whether a case is made out to proceed further. The Court itself may, upon consideration of the materials placed before it, take cognizance of the private complaint and proceed in accordance with law. If necessary, the Court may also direct the competent police authority to register a case, conduct an investigation, and file a final report in accordance with law.

23. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms:

(i) The investigation conducted by the third respondent in Crime No.86 of 2026 on the file of the fourth respondent is transferred to the other investigating officer.;

(ii) The second respondent is directed to nominate a qualified and competent officer in the cadre of not less than the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the control of the second respondent, to conduct and continue the investigation in Crime No.86 of 2026 on the file of the fourth respondent and investigation officer to be appointed within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

(iii) The third respondent is directed not to proceed further investigation henceforth and as well as the new investigation officer is appointed, the third respondent is directed to handover the entire case file to the new investigation officer;

(iv) The new investigation officer once appointed is directed to conduct the investigation in a fair and proper without any bias or influence from any one and complete the investigation as per the provisions of BNSS / Cr.P.C. coupled with SC/ST Act and its connected Rule and file a final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the case record in Crime No.86 of 2026;

(v) The III Additional Sessions Court, Madurai, who is the Special Court or the designated Court under the SC/ST Act, is directed to expedite the proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.272 of 2025 (old Cr.M.P.No. 3074 of 2024) and conclude the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(vi) The III Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, which is the Special Court or designated Court of SC / ST Act is directed to look into the subsequent private complaint filed by the petitioner and decide the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.