Rajendran v. Social Welfare Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN and W.M.P.Nos.18320 and 18317 of 2025 1.

Rajendran 2.

Padmavathi 3.

Bhoopalan ... Petitioners versus 1.

Social Welfare Officer, Thiruvannamalai.

2.

Inspector of Police, Aarani Rural Police Station, Thiruvannamalai.

3.

Bhakiya ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the summon issued by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.129-1/A4/2025 dated 11.03.2025 against the petitioners and quash the same.

Pg.Nos.1/6

For Petitioners :

Mr.S.M.Arun Kumaar For Respondents :

Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 and R2

O R D E R

Dr.C.E.Pratap, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2. Since this writ petition is being disposed of without passing any adverse orders against the third respondent affecting her interest, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.

2. The writ petition has been filed to quash the summon issued by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.129-1/A4/2025 dated 11.03.2025 against the petitioners.

3. According to the petitioners, one Subramani, who is the son of the petitioners 1 and 2 and brother of third petitioner, was married the third respondent herein and out of their wedlock two children were born. Due to difference of opinion, the said Subramani and the third respondent got separated. While that being so, the third respondent lodged a false complaint Pg.Nos.2/6

before the second respondent-Police against the said Subramani and also included the names of the petitioners herein under the Domestic Violence Act. The second respondent-Police had forwarded the said complaint to the first respondent - Social Welfare Officer. While so, the first respondent, who had treated the said complaint as a complaint of Domestic Violence and issued impugned notice to initiate proceedings under the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act. It is further stated that the petitioners have not resided along with the said Subramani and the third respondent to constitute domestic violence, the third respondent with clandestine intention had implicated the names of the petitioners in the said complaint. Therefore, the impugned notice may be quashed.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. It is seen from the records that based on the complaint received from the third respondent, summons issued by the first respondent - Social Welfare Officer, Thiruvannamalai to the petitioners, calling upon them to appear for enquiry on 26.03.2025 and redress their grievances. Instead of appearing before the first respondent, the petitioners rushed to this Court by Pg.Nos.3/6

way of this writ petition praying to quash the impugned notice dated 11.03.2025.

6. No doubt, after receiving notice, it is duty of the petitioners to appear before the statutory authority for enquiry and redress their grievance. After enquiry only, it can be decided as to whether the petitioners are also involved in the alleged commission of offence or not. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get the relief as sought for in this writ petition. However, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Social Welfare Officer, Thiruvannamalai and co-operate for enquiry. With the above directions, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 04.06.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No ms Pg.Nos.4/6

To 1.

The Social Welfare Officer, Thiruvannamalai.

2.

The Inspector of Police, Aarani Rural Police Station, Thiruvannamalai.

3.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Pg.Nos.5/6

P.VELMURUGAN, J ms 04.06.2025 (2/2) Pg.Nos.6/6