Also Read - Madras High Court Clarifies RTI Applicability to Private Unaided Schools

The Additional Superintendent conducted an independent inquiry into all the allegations raised by the petitioner. The inquiry report, submitted to the Court, stated that no material was found that would warrant the registration of a criminal case or the initiation of departmental proceedings against DySP Madhu Babu. The conclusions were based on the statements of witnesses, verification of relevant records, examination of an audio recording of the interaction captured by CCTV footage, and other objective materials gathered during the investigation.

Court’s Observations on Compliance and Remedial Options

After hearing the submission and perusing the inquiry report, Justice Sebastian observed that the direction issued by the co‑ordinate Bench had been substantially complied with. He noted that the authority concerned had considered the representation, had ordered an inquiry, and had examined the allegations through an independent process. The Court emphasized that the inquiry had not uncovered any evidence sufficient to justify criminal prosecution or departmental action against the officer.

Also Read - Allahabad High Court Questions Remission Granted to Life Convict After Serving Less Than Six Years

Justice Sebastian further remarked that, should the petitioner continue to feel aggrieved, she remained free to pursue remedies available under the ordinary criminal law, such as approaching the jurisdictional magistrate for directions regarding the registration of a first information report. He characterised the approach of moving directly to the High Court for contempt as procedurally improper, observing that the proper forum for a complaint of non‑registration of an FIR is the magistrate’s court.

The Judge added that his predecessor had previously passed an order in favour of the petitioner, but the present course of action was to honour the earlier direction while clarifying the appropriate remedial pathway. Consequently, the Court declared the contempt petition closed, while reserving liberty to the petitioner to explore any other statutory remedies she might deem fit.

Also Read - Madras High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Senthil Balaji and Brother in Alleged Bribery Case

Implications of the Order

The decision underscores the High Court’s insistence that contempt proceedings are not to be used as a substitute for regular criminal remedies when the police have conducted a lawful inquiry and found no basis for action. It reinforces the principle that allegations of police misconduct must first be examined by the appropriate executive authority, and only if that authority fails to act or acts illegally may the aggrieved party seek judicial intervention.

For the petitioner, the order leaves open the possibility of filing a complaint before the magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or of pursuing a writ petition alleging mala fide or non‑application of mind by the police, should she be able to demonstrate such grounds. For the police administration, the judgment affirms that a properly conducted inquiry, documented and based on objective evidence, satisfies the judicial direction to consider a representation and shields officers from unwarranted contempt proceedings.

Also Read - Karnataka High Court Upholds FIR in Land Grabbing Case Against Former Minister

The case, identified as Contempt Case (C) No. 1363 of 2026, titled Thilakeshwari @ Sheela Kurian v. G. Sparjan Kumar IPS, thus concludes with the High Court closing the contempt notice while affirming the availability of ordinary legal remedies for any persisting grievance.