← Library
Madras High CourtWP/23362/2018dismissed as infructuous

Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, v. The Director, Department Of

2018-11-16Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.11.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.23362 of 2018 K.Chandrasekaran

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Chennai-16 2.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Chennai 3.Charles Inspector of Police T-13, Kundrathur Police Station Kundrathur Kancheepuram District.

... Respondents Prayer: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.04.2018 against the 3rd respondent in light of direction of 1st respondent vide Pet.No.4035/2018/POL/CC-HQ dated 23.04.2018 within the time frame fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman For Respondents : Mr.R.Ravichandran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this writ petition to direct the 2nd respondent herein to consider the representation dated 12.04.2018 against the 3rd respondent in light of direction of 1st respondent vide Pet.No.4035/2018/POL/CC-HQ dated 23.04.2018 within the time frame fixed by this Court.

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Senior citizen and resident of Chennai. In the year 2013, some of the persons viz. Vijayan, Murugan, Kandasamy approached this petitioner and offered him housing plots with 22 feet road to reach the property at Palanthandalam Village, Vasanthi Nagar, Tambaram. Believing the words of those persons, the petitioner purchased plot No.342 vide Doc. No.3861 of 2013 on the file of the S.R.O. Padappai and the petitioner's relatives have also purchased several plots there. Thereafter, the petitioner and his relatives found that there is no road facility at all to reach the said property. The brokers have created a forged documents to make the petitioner and his relatives to purchase the said land. Hence, a complaint has been lodged as against them by the petitioner.

3.The said complaint was registered before the Kundrathur Police Station, but, instead of taking action against the accused persons, the complaint was kept pending by the 3rd respondent herein i.e. Inspector of Police, T-13, Kundrathur Police Station. The 3rd respondent, instead of conducting enquiry, colluded with the accused persons and received a bribe of Rs.2 lakhs from the accused and lodged an F.I.R against the petitioner, his son and his relatives in Crime No.430 of 2018, on the file of the T-13, Kundrathur Police Station under Sections 294(b), 506(1) IPC.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents would submit that the representation was sent to the Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (D.V.A.C.) on 12.04.2018. against the 3rd respondent. The D.V.A.C. has forwarded the representation to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Police had already conducted an enquiry and the same was also closed. The copy of the order dated 15.06.2018 has also been produced before this Court.

5.In view of the above, nothing survives in this petition for further adjudication, accordingly, the same stands dismissed as infructous. Liberty is given to the petitioner to work out the remedy in the manner known to law if so advised. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kas

To 1.The Director Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Chennai-16 2.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Chennai + 1 cc to Mr. M. Habeeb Rahman, Advocate Sr.78397 W.P.No.23362 of 2018 SR(CO) EU(14/12/2018)