← Library
Madras High CourtWP/13418/2025disposed of

Thiruvikraman v. The Superintendent Of Police

2025-04-21Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and W.M.P.No.15041 of 2025 Thiruvikraman ... Petitioner -Vs1. The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore -607 001.

2. The Inspector of Police, Cuddalore Old Town Police Station, Cuddalore-607 003.

3. The Sub Inspector of Police, Cuddalore Old Town Police Station, Cuddalore-607 003.

4. Thirugnanasandam

5. N.Thamizhdoss

6. K.Santhakumar

...Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, restraining respondents 1 to 3 from in any manner intimidating or interfering with the petitioner and his family members in respect of civil dispute pertaining to the building bearing door No.21, E.B. Colony Sellankuppam, in Ward No.2, Block No.14, T.S.No.14 over a site measuring 2280 sq.ft in Cuddalore City Municipal Corporation Limits, in Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Ashok Kumar For R1 to R3 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side) O RDER This Writ Petition has been filed restraining respondents 1 to 3 from in any manner intimidating or interfering with the petitioner and his family members in respect of civil dispute pertaining to the building bearing door No.21, E.B. Colony Sellankuppam, in Ward No.2, Block No.14, T.S.No.14 over a site measuring 2280 sq.ft in Cuddalore City Municipal Corporation Limits, in Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.

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. It is seen that there is a property dispute pending between the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 6 herein. On the complaint lodged by the fourth respondent, the second respondent harassed the petitioner and also interfered in the civil dispute.

4. On instructions, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that on the complaint lodged by the fourth respondent, the second respondent conducted a detailed enquiry and the same was closed as against the petitioner.

5. However, the respondents 1 to 3 herein have no role to play in the civil dispute pending between the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 6 herein.

6. In view of the above, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed not to interfere with the civil dispute pending between the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 6 herein in respect of their property. However, if any cognizable offence committed by the petitioner or the respondents 4 to 6 herein, the second respondent is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, as against the accused.

7. With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 21.04.2025 Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order mn

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, mn To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore -607 001.

2. The Inspector of Police, Cuddalore Old Town Police Station, Cuddalore-607 003.

3. The Sub Inspector of Police, Cuddalore Old Town Police Station, Cuddalore-607 003.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

21.04.2025