Madras High CourtWP/9000/2023disposed of

Lakshmi v. The Inspector General Of Police

2023-06-13Honourable Mr Justice G. Chandrasekharan6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 13.06.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN Lakshmi

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Inspector General of Police, West Zone, Race Course Road, Coimbatore-18.

2. The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing II, Coimbatore-18.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Near Sasthiri Nagar, Angeripalayam Road, Angeripalayam, Tiruppur-641603.

4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udumalaipettai, Back Side to Boys Higher Secondary School, Udumalepet, Tiruppur District-641 154.

5. The District Revenue Officer, Tiruppur.

6. The Inspector of Police, Gudimangalam Police Station, Gudimangalam, Udumalepet, Tiruppur District-642 201.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of the Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to initiate action on the petitioner's representation dated 02.12.2022. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vasanthanayagan For Respondents : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to initiate action on the petitioner's representation dated 02.12.2022.

2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the land in S.F.No.342, 343, 346, 347, 350B in the Amanthakadavu Village, Udumalaipet Taluk, Tiruppur District. There

are 1500 coconut trees in the land, tractors and other properties are available in the land. Petitioner's son one Ramesh is doing finance in the name of UTS finance and suffered loss. Since he was not able to return the deposits to the depositors, FIR in Crime No.3 of 2019 was registered against him by the Economic Offences Wing, Coimbatore. When the case was pending, on 08.11.2022, 25 persons including the accused had illegally trespassed into the property of the petitioner and stolen two tractors, coconuts, vehicles and other properties. Despite giving the complaint on 09.12.2022, no action was taken. Therefore, this petition.

3. In response, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that there was a lease agreement between one Marappan and the petitioner. In connection with land dispute, the complaint was given on 09.12.2022. The respondent Police conducted an enquiry and the parties informed during the course of enquiry that they will resolve their dispute before the competent Court and therefore, the enquiry was closed.

4. In view of the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of giving direction to the petitioner to work out her remedy, in the manner known to law, before the competent Court. No costs.

13.06.2023 mn Index:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No