Madras High CourtWA/1301/2016disposed of

(Miss) Dorothy Wilcox v. Commissioner Of Police

2016-10-25Honourable Mr Justice V. Parthiban,Honourable Mr Justice Huluvadi G. Ramesh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.10.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.A.No.1301 of 2016 (Miss) Dorothy Wilcox Appellant/Petitioner

Versus

1. Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai 600 007.

2. Inspector of Police, Law and Order M1 Police Station, Chennai 600 110.

3. The Banking Ombudsman, RBI Building, Chennai 600 001.

4. Federal Bank, GT Branch, 51, Armenian Street, Chennai 600 001.

5. Bank of Baroda, Kolathur Branch 1, Srinivasa Nagar, Chennai 600 099.

6. Canara Bank, 154, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai 600 001.

7. Indian Overseas Bank, Nungambakkam Branch, 109, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034.

8. Mr.Glenwel Correya Respondents

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 15.10.2015 passed in W.P.Sr.No.75375/2015 on the file of this court. Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to withdraw the case ending for FIR Crime No.2015/2014 dated 05.10.2014 at the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvattiyur as the Jurisdiction is only High Court and after proper investigation file a Criminal suit in the Hon'ble Madras High Court for the Court order dated 21.8.2014 in Crl.OP.22353/2014, as my mandate was fractured due to forgery by the Banks on my Demand Drafts after I had issued them to the vendor. I invoke the rule of bias for order No.5 dated 28.09.2007 as biased and prejudiced against me. The main grievance in this petition is bias, discrimination and prejudice against me by the 4 Banks and the Banking Ombudsman for violation of my fundamental rights. For appellant : Ms.Dorothy Wilcox(Party in person)

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.) Heard the appellant, as party in person. Perused the order of the learned Single Judge. It appears that in connection with purchase of some property, one Glenwel Correya, the eighth respondent herein is said to have cheated the appellant in execution of the sale deed, etc. In this regard, a learned Single Judge also, on the earlier occasion, having taken into consideration various issues made out by the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.9862 of 2014, directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Land Grabbing Cell to appoint an Inspector of police to enquire into the matter and the appellant shall be issued with a notice to attend attend the hearing and thereafter, the police official so nominated shall conduct enquiry in the manner known to law, in accordance with law.

2. Such being the position, the appellant had filed the writ petition for transfer of the criminal case to this court. We do not find any error or illegality, as such, in the order passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the relief which cannot be granted. In the circumstances, the appellant would wait for notice to be served on her during the enquiry by the police of

the Land Grabbing Cell. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssk.

To: