Nagavalli, v. The State Of Tamilnadu,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated:31.07.2024 Coram:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN Writ Petition No.18547 of 2024 Mrs.Nagavalli .. Petitioner /versus/ 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by Home Secretary, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Gundu Salai Road, Alpet, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore 607 001.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District 607 001.
4.The Inspector of Police, Puduchatram Police Station, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District.
1/6
5.The District Revenue Officer, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore 607 001.
6.The Tahsildar, Cuddalore Taluk, Silver Beach Road, Anna Nagar, Cuddalore 607 001.
7.Murugan 8.Sakthi 9.Elumalai 10.Arul 11.Gunabalan 12.Thulasi @ Ramadev .. Respondents Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st to 6th respondents to take action against the 7th to 12th respondents, who are conducting Katapanchayat (Kangaroo Court) in Annappanpettai Village, Andarmullipalayam, Cuddalore.
For Petitioners :Mr.G.Mohana Krishnan For R1 to R6 :Mr.S.Udayakumar, Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side) For R9 to R12 :Mr.N.Damodaran ----- 2/6
ORDER
The petitioner herein, who has a pathway dispute between the private respondents has filed this writ petition alleging that the private respondents are conducting Kattapanchayat in the village and they has prevented her relatives from participating in her son's marriage held on 11.02.2024. It is also alleged that they are forcing her to compromise the complaint given by her son on 04.06.2023 which was registered in C.S.R.No.294 of 2023.
2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioner has an habit of giving complaint alleging excommunication on one pretext or another and the investigation conducted clearly indicates that the respondents, who are the other villagers infact afraid of the attitude of the petitioner and staying away from her.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is put to great hardship due to the attitude of the private respondents, even though she belongs to the same community. 3/6
4. This Court on perusing the complaint and the nature of the allegation as well as the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) regarding the investigation conducted in this matter is of the view that the property dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 7 to 12 has led to give a complaint to the authorities as if she has been excommunicated from the village. The village of the petitioner is a small hamlet, predominantly inhabitate by fisherman. The allegation of physical assault and restrain from using the private pathway has led to the exaggerate complaint. The respondent police on investigation has found that no such act of excommunication done against this petitioner.
5. This Court is of the view that the writ petition filed with falsehood and exaggerated averments deserves to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 31.07.2024 Index:yes/no 4/6
To:
1.The Home Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Fort St.Fort George, Chennai.
2.The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Gundu Salai Road, Alpet, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore 607 001.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District 607 001. 4.The Inspector of Police, Puduchatram Police Station, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District.
5.The District Revenue Officer, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore 607 001. 6.The Tahsildar, Cuddalore Taluk, Silver Beach Road, Anna Nagar, Cuddalore 607 001.
7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
5/6
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
ari 31.07.2024 6/6