The Kalmunai Magistrate’s Court has ordered that the statement of a High Court Judge identified as a suspect in a criminal case be recorded and that a final report or charge sheet be filed on or before 11 February 2026. The case was accordingly postponed to that date.
The order follows allegations that the suspect threatened Notary Public Mohamed Haneefa over the telephone and obstructed him from performing his official duties.
When the matter was taken up in open court on Wednesday (21 January) before Kalmunai Magistrate K. L. M. Sajith, the Periya Neelavanai Police informed court that the suspect’s statement had not yet been recorded and that legal advice was still pending from the Police Legal Division in respect of the case file.
Police therefore, sought a further date to report to court after receiving the required advice.
Objecting to the request, Attorney-at-Law Mubarak Muazzam, appearing for the virtual complainant, submitted that despite a clear order issued at the previous hearing directing the police to record the suspect’s statement, investigating officers were repeatedly seeking postponements. Instructions had also been given to file a final report under Section 120(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, or a charge sheet under Section 136(1)(b), the attorney said.
He alleged that the delays were intended to obstruct the progress of the case and urged the court to issue a firm directive to ensure compliance in the interests of justice.
After hearing submissions from both sides, the Magistrate ordered the Periya Neelavanai Police to record the suspect’s statement and file the final report, and postponed the case to 11 February 2026.
Attorney-at-Law Mubarak Muazzam and Attorney-at-Law Nithanshan appeared for the virtual complainant.
The case stems from a complaint lodged in 2022 by Mahadevan Muralitharan, which resulted in a B report being filed before the Kalmunai Magistrate’s Court.
It is alleged that the suspect threatened Notary Public Mohamed Haneefa to prevent him from executing a transfer deed, constituting offences under Sections 344 and 486 of the Penal Code.
Court-ordered telecommunications records subsequently confirmed that the suspect had made the call to the notary, leading to his identification. (Newswire)