← Library
Madras High CourtWP/34141/2024dismissed

K.Rangasamy v. The Superintendent Of Police,

2024-12-11Honourable Mr Justice P. Velmurugan5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.12.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN K.Rangasamy ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police, Erode District, Erode.

2. The Inspector of Police, Sivagiri Police Station, Sivagiri, Erode. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to register the petitioner's complaints dated 04.08.2022 and 28.12.2023 and investigate the same and also issue a Non-Traceable Certificate for the original sale deed dated 20.11.2013 in Doc.No.11640/2013 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Sivagiri.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Nishanth For Respondents : Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to register the petitioner's complaint dated 04.08.2022 and 28.12.2023 and investigate the same and also issue a Non-Traceable Certificate for the original sale deed dated 20.11.2013 in Doc.No.11640/2013 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Sivagiri.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that on 20.11.2023, while the petitioner was travelling in his scooter to take copies of the original sale deed dated 20.11.2023, he has lost the same. Hence, the petitioner lodged the complaint before the second respondent police on 02.08.2022. The Inspector General of Registration vide Circular dated 01.04.2022 in R.C.No.2029209/General.1(1)/2022 had issued procedures to be adopted with regard to non-traceable certificate. Thereafter, the petitioner herein

once again lodged a complaint before the respondent police. Since the respondents have not taken any effective steps so far with regard to his complaint, the petitioner was constrained to file this criminal original petition.

4. It is stated by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents that the petitioner has not submitted appropriate proforma as stated by them.

5. In view of the same, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the respondents police.

11.12.2024 mfa Index:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No

To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Erode District, Erode.

2. The Inspector of Police, Sivagiri Police Station, Sivagiri, Erode.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

mfa 11.12.2024