Subramaniyan v. The Superintendent Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Subramaniyan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.

The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

2.

The Sub Inspector of Police, Thittagudi Police Station, Cuddalore District.

3.

Karuppaiya 4.

Nirmala 5.

Revathi ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.06.2025 and 02.07.2025 to initiate action against 3rd to 5th respondents under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in accordance with law.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Velmurugan 1/5

For Respondents : Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 and R2

O R D E R

The Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 20.06.2025 and 02.07.2025, wherein and whereby he sought to initiate action against respondents 3 to 5 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in accordance with law.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on record.

3. Since no adverse orders passed as against respondents 3 to 5 affecting their interest, notice to those respondents is dispensed with.

4. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, submitted that the second respondent-Police had already conducted an enquiry and registered a case in Crime No.148 of 2025 on 2/5

24.07.2025 against the respondents 3 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 92(a) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Hence, nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition.

5. In view of the above submission, the relief sought for by the petitioner in the Writ Petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

25.07.2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No ms 3/5

To 1.

The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

2.

The Sub Inspector of Police, Thittagudi Police Station, Cuddalore District.

3.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

4/5

P.VELMURUGAN, J ms 25.07.2025 5/5