Madras High CourtWP/21781/2013closed

S.Kirubakaran, v. The Inspector General Of

2016-11-28Honourable Mr Justice M.S. Ramesh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 28.11.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P. No.21781 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 S.Kirubakaran ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Inspector General of Police, North Zone, Chennai.

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

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur Sub Division Thiruvallur 602 001, Thiruvallur District.

4. The Inspector of Police, Manavalan Nagar Police Station, Thiruvallur 602 001 Thiruvallur District.

5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing - II, Coimbatore.

6. P. Rajendran

7. N.V.Saravanan

8. N.V.Koteeswaran .. Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to ensure necessary protection to the petitioner's life and family and prevent the respondents 6 to 8 from taking the law into their own hands to extract money and consequently direct the respondents 6 and 7 to approach the 5th respondent for return of their investments made in Fine Future Firm and its partners by considering his representation dated 03.08.2013.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondents: Mr.R.Govindasamy Special Government Pleader for R1 to R5 Mr.M.Chidambaram R6 Mr.R.Sankarasubia for R7 & R8

ORDER

The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to grant necessary protection to the petitioner's life and family and prevent the private respondents from taking the law into their own hands to extract money and consequently direct the respondents 6 and 7 to approach the 5th respondent for return of their investments made in Fine Future Firm and its partners by considering his representation dated 03.08.2013.

2. When the writ petition was called today, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that based on the complaint dated 06.08.2013 they had conducted an investigation and the case was treated as mistake of fact and on 06.08.2013, a final report has also been filed before the Judicial Magistrate II, Tiruvallur.

3. In view of the subsequent developments, no further adjudication is required in this writ petition. Nevertheless, if the petitioner is aggrieved against the final report made by the respondents, it is open to him to challenge the petition in the manner known to law.

4. With the above observations writ petition is closed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. -s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar dpq