Rajendran v. The Superintendent Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Rajendran ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police, Erode District Police, Erode.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perundurai Police Range, Erode District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, Erode District.

4. Baskar The Sub Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, Erode District.

5. Sakthivel ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider petitioner representation dated 11.03.2025, seeking action against the 4th respondent for interfering in civil disputes and harassing petitioner under the guise of an enquiry, consequently directing the 3rd and 4th respondents not to harass the petitioner under the pretext of an enquiry in connection with the civil dispute.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar For R1 to R3 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.03.2025, seeking action against the 4th respondent for interfering in civil disputes and harassing the petitioner under the guise of an enquiry, consequently directing the 3rd and 4th respondents not to harass the petitioner under the pretext of an enquiry in connection with the civil dispute.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the materials available on record.

3. On instructions, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that on the complaint lodged by the fifth respondent, the fifth respondent was issued with CSR No.131 of 2025 and after conducting enquiry, it was closed on 30.01.2025 as all the allegations are civil in nature.

4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced photos to show that the fourth respondent was present along with JCB and interfered with the civil dispute between the petitioner and the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent is claiming right over the Well to draw water situated in the petitioner's land. Therefore, the civil dispute is pending between the petitioner and the fifth respondent. Though the complaint lodged by the fifth respondent was closed, the third and fourth respondents have no role to play in the civil dispute pending between the petitioner and the fifth respondent.

5. In view of the above, the fourth respondent is directed not to interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioner and the fifth respondent. At the same time, if the petitioner or the fifth respondent had committed any offence, the fourth respondent is at liberty to take appropriate action as against them in the manner known to law.

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition petition is disposed of.

No costs.

27.03.2025 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order mn

To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Erode District Police, Erode.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perundurai Police Range, Erode District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, Erode District.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, mn 27.03.2025