Kalaivani v. Director General Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06.07.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR W.P. No.17102 of 2022 Kalaivani ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director General of Police, O/o, Director General of Police office, Chennai-4.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thittakudi Sub division, Cuddalore District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Thittakudi police Station, Cuddalore District.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to take an appropriate action against respondent 2 to 4 herein by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 13.06.2022 in accordance with law and pending on the file of first respondent herein.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Velmurugan For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

The Writ Petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to take an appropriate action against respondents 2 to 4 by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 13.06.2022.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on 06.05.2022, a dispute arose between the petitioner's brother-in-law and his neighbors. Therefore, the petitioner's father interfered to pacify the wordy quarrel. However, the accused persons confined the petitioner's father and attacked him. Hence, the petitioner's father lodged a complaint before the 4th respondent police on 07.05.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner's father had filed a Writ Petition before this Court on 18.05.2022 and the case was adjourned to 07.06.2022. But unfortunately, during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner's father had developed stress and died out of heart attack . He would further submit that the petitioner had also given a representation to the first respondent on 13.06.2022. However, no action has been taken. Hence, he seeks direction to take action against the respondents 2 to 4.

4. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

5. At the outset, this Court is unable to comprehend the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Further, the very Writ Petition itself an obscure one when the complaint lodged by the petitioner's father was already closed. The death of the petitioner's father due to heart attack cannot be attributed to the police.

6. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merits in this case. Hence, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. 06.07.2022 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No nr/shk

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

nr To 1.The Director General of Police, O/o, Director General of Police office, Chennai-4.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thittakudi Sub division, Cuddalore District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Thittakudi police Station, W.P. No.17102 of 2022 Cuddalore District.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

06.07.2022