Mohammed Khasim v. The Additional Director

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Mohammed Khasim ... Petitioner -Vs1. The Additional Director General of Police, O/O The Director General of Police, Dr Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

2. The Commissioner of Police (GCP), Vepery, Chennai -7.

3. The Joint Commissioner of Police, (East Division), Egmore, Chennai - 8.

4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Mylapore Unit) Kutchery Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

5. The Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, No.293 MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai 600 016.

6. The Inspector of Police, D4 Zam Bazar Police Station,

7. Mahitha Anna Christy

Inspector of Police, formerly worked in D-4, Zam Bazar Police Station,

8. M.S.Govindarajan

...Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to take appropriate action as against the 7th respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 03.03.2024 and its reminders dated 13.05.2024 and 14.07.2024.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ilayaperumal For R1 to R6 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side) O RDER This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to take appropriate action as against the 7th respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 03.03.2024 and its reminders dated 13.05.2024 and 14.07.2024.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondents 1 to 6 and perused the materials available on record.

3. A perusal of the representation dated 03.03.2024 revealed that

the petitioner made several allegations as against the 7th respondent, on the ground that the 7th respondent, on receipt of the complaint from the 8th respondent, repeatedly called the petitioner for enquiry. In fact, the earlier complaint lodged by the 8th respondent before the 6th respondent was enquired and closed. That apart, the 8th respondent also approached the jurisdictional Magistrate and sought for direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and the same was also rejected. Even then, the 7th respondent entertained the complaint lodged by the 8th respondent and issued summons to the petitioner for enquiry. There is absolutely no power for lodging many number of complaints. Further, on receipt of the complaint from the 8th respondent, the 7th respondent called the petitioner for enquiry. Therefore, the 7th respondent had done her duty and as such, the representation of the petitioner to take appropriate action as against the 7th respondent cannot be ordered.

4. In view of the above, this writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. However, the 7th respondent while summoning the petitioner for enquiry, is directed not to harass the petitioner and to follow the guidelines stipulated for preliminary enquiry or registration of FIR by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others [2014 (2) SCC (1)].

5. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 08.04.2025 Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order mn To

1. The Additional Director General of Police, O/O The Director General of Police, Dr Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

2. The Commissioner of Police (GCP), Vepery, Chennai -7.

3. The Joint Commissioner of Police, (East Division), Egmore, Chennai - 8.

4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Mylapore Unit) Kutchery Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

5. The Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, No.293 MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai 600 016.

6. The Inspector of Police, D4 Zam Bazar Police Station,

7. Mahitha Anna Christy Inspector of Police, formerly worked in D-4, Zam Bazar Police Station,

8. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, mn

08.04.2025