J. Fathima Kani vs The State of Tamilnadu & Anr.

Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is one and same, both the matters are taken up together and a common order is passed.

Heard both sides.

The prayer in both the writ petitions is to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction to direct the respondents to take legal action against the intimidator based on the petitioner's representation dated 23.07.2026.

Both the writ petitions are filed by sister and brother separately, with regard to the property that they have taken from the Waqf Board and they are residing as a tenant. One of the Waqf Board member Mr.Mohammed Hakkim demanded money from the petitioners to satisfy his needs, which is not under law. Therefore, the petitioners refused to extend the demanded money to such person. Then the said person threatened the petitioners life if they would not pay any money as demanded by the said person, the petitioners have to face the consequences. In this regard, both the petitioners sent a separate representation dated 23.07.2026 to the respondent police for criminal action but there is no action from the police. Therefore, they rushed up to the Court with these writ petitions for direction.

The petitioner in WP.Crl.(MD) No.4946 of 2026 filed a case before the Tamilnadu Waqf Tribunal, Chennai in O.A.No. 81/2026 for an injunction restraining the illegal activities of the Waqf Board member. Likewise, the other petitioner, J.Fathima Kani in WP.Crl.No.4928 of 2026 also filed in O.A.No.82/2026, and both the cases are pending before the competent Waqf Tribunal. As the said Waqf Board member Mr.Mohammed Hakkim regularly threatening the petitioners, having not satisfied his desire to get money from the petitioners, therefore, suitable direction may be given to the police.

The learned Government Advocate submitted that both the representations have been received by the second respondent and as per the statement of the petitioner, Mr.S.Shahul Hameed, he will proceed the case in O.A.No.81/2026 and hence, no order has been passed by the police.

This is not fair on the part of the police, wherein any allegations of criminal offences, complaint is given, they have to enquire the petitioner as well as the rival party and thereafter, take a better decision whether the case is made out or not, if made out, register an FIR and follow the investigation. Having not done any enquiry the statement of the learned Government Advocate cannot be accepted.

Recording the above, the second respondent is directed to enquire both the complaints dated 23.07.2026 by issuing summons under Section 64 of BNSS and record the statements from the petitioner as well as the rival party and necessarily examine other witnesses and then decide whether the case is made out or not and proceed further.

With the above direction, both the writ petitions are disposed of.