Ramesh v. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.07.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
1. Ramesh
2. R.Kannagi
...Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Economic Offences Wing) Cuddalore - 607001.
2. The Inspector of Police, (Economic Offences Wing) Cuddalore - 607001.
3. Jothi The Proprietor, Sri Suvai Chit Funds (P) Ltd., 175, O.S.Deen Building, West Street, Chidambaram - 608 001.
Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District.
4. The Foreman, Sri Suvai Chit Funds (P) Ltd., 175, O.S.Deen Building, West Street, Chidambaram - 608 001.
Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District.
1/6
5. Kumar Agent Sri Suvai Chit Funds (P) Ltd., 175, O.S.Deen Building, West Street, Chidambaram - 608 001.
Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District.
...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from intimidating the petitioners in respect of chit money transaction with M/s.Suvai Chit Funds (P), an unregistered chit fund, running by the respondents 3 to 5.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Baskar For Respondents : Dr.C.E.Pratap, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 and 2 ******
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to restrain the respondents 1 and 2 from intimidating the petitioners in respect of chit money transaction with the respondents 3 to 5.
According to learned counsel for the petitioners the 2/6
second petitioner is a subscriber of the chit run by the private respondents herein. In the auction held on 19.12.2016, the second petitioner was a successful bidder for Rs.16,25,000/- and the respondents 3 to 5 without paying the entire amount, threatening the petitioners through the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the remaining monthly instalments, which is illegal. Therefore it is necessary to pass orders restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from threatening the petitioners.
Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that based on the complaint given by the private respondents, the second petitioner was summoned to appear before the police for enquiry.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on record. It is seen that based on the complaint given by the 3/6
private respondents the respondent police issued summons to the petitioners to appear before the respondent police on 21.05.2025. However, the petitioners instead of appearing before the respondent police, approached this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to restrain the respondents police from threatening them. Once complaint received, it is the duty of the police to issue summon and conduct preliminary enquiry, especially in the cases of this nature. Accordingly the respondent police also issued summons, but the petitioners did not appear before the respondent police. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief as sought for by the petitioners. The respondent police are directed to issue fresh summons to the petitioners and on receipt of the same, the petitioners are directed to appear before the police and co-operate for enquiry. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.
28.07.2025 4/6
(1⁄2) cgi Speaking /Non-speaking order To
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Economic Offences Wing) Cuddalore - 607001.
2. The Inspector of Police, (Economic Offences Wing) Cuddalore - 607001.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
5/6
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
cgi W.P.(Crl.)No.416 of 2025 28.07.2025 6/6