R.Sekar v. State By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23.12.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA R.Sekar ... Petitioner Vs.

1. State by:

Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.

2. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to take action against the 2nd respondent, who in turn received my complaint forwarded by the 1st respondent for enquiry based on my complaints dated 21.09.2020, 20.09.2021, 17.05.2022 and failed to report the same for the genuineness of the appointment order of this Court to the 1st respondent till date and kept in abeyance.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Shanmugaboopathi

O R D E R

The Writ Petition has been filed, seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to take action against the 2nd respondent, who in turn received the complaint of the petitioner forwarded by the 1st respondent 1/4

and failed to report the same.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one Gnanaprakasam had cheated the petitioner and several others by receiving money on the assurance to secure a job; he had also created some fake appointment orders; in this regard, the petitioner has given a complaint to the first respondent police and that has been forwarded to the 2nd respondent, but the 2nd respondent has not taken any action.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents submitted that since the petitioner is not satisfied with the action taken by the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, the matter is transferred to another officer viz., Raja, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram for enquiry. On the complaint given by the petitioner, current paper enquiry has been initiated in CSR No.86 of 2021 and the same is pending.

4. Since the complaint has been given as early as on 20.09.2020, the 2nd respondent Police ought to have taken due action. On the complaint given 2/4

by the petitioner, current paper enquiry has been initiated in CSR No.86 of 2021 and the petitioner has been summoned twice and he made his appearance and gave the statement. In these circumstances, the 2nd respondent had collected the materials relevant to the case. But no action has been taken. Now a new officer has been appointed to take up the investigation and hence I feel it is appropriate to direct the first respondent Police to monitor the action taken by the new officer viz., Raja, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram in this regard and do the needful in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

23.12.2022 Index:yes/No Speaking order / Non speaking order vum 3/4

R.N.MANJULA,J.

vum To The Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.

2. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

23.12.2022 4/4