S.Revathi v. Srinibabu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.03.2023 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA S.Revathi .. Petitioner -Vs1.Mr.Srinibabu The Inspector of Police Tindivanam Circle Police Station Tindivanam, Villupuram District.

2. Mr.Srinatha The Superintendent of Police Tindivanam Circle Police Station Tindivanam, Villupuram District.

.. Respondents Prayer : This Contempt petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of Court by disobeying the order of this Court dated 02.03.2022 in Crl.OP.No.4734 of 2022.

For Petitioners :

M/s.T.V.G.Kartheeban For Respondents :

Mr.N.S.Suganthan, GA (Crl.side) 1/4

O R D E R

The case of the petitioner is that she had purchased a property measuring 456 1/4 sq.ft share from on Indhirani vide Doc.No.1078 of 2021 on the file of SRO, Tindivanam. Whileso, one Venkatesan based on fabricated document threatened the petitioner and the petitioner had given complaint to the respondent police, since no action was taken, the petitioner had earlier filed Crl.OP.No.4734 of 2022 seeking police protection, this Court by an order dated 02.03.2022 had directed the respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 10.11.2021 in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

2. Being aggrieved by the non-compliance of the order dated 02.03.2022, the present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) would submit that in due compliance of the order, the ASP, Tindivanam took up the enquiry as per the directions of the higher officials and conducted enquiry and the same was disposed of directing the 2/4

petitioner to approach the Civil forum for appropriate remedy and the same was also intimated to the defacto complainant by communication through the registered post dated 17.12.2022. He would submit that the respondent had collected various documents for enquiry, there had been the delay, the delay is neither willful nor wanton and the petitioners have not committed any act of contempt, however, he would seek unconditional apology of this Court for the delayed disposal of the representation and he would pray that the matter may be closed.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record and the status report filed by the respondents/police.

5. The respondent has complied with the order dated 02.03.2022, though there had been delay an apology has been tendered by the respondent for the delay and the delay is condoned and the contempt petition stands closed.

30.03.2023 tsh To The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

3/4

A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA. J., tsh 30.03.2023.

4/4