← Library
Madras High CourtWP Crl./1181/2025disposed of

M.P.Balaganapathi v. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police,

2025-10-28Honourable Mr Justice A.D.Jagadish Chandira5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA WP Crl. No. 1181 of 2025 & WPMP.No.563 of 2025

1. M.P.Balaganapathi S/o.M.G.K.Palani, residing at P.A.N.

Rajarathinam 3rd Street, Old Washermanpet, Chennai - 600 021.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruthani Range, Thiruvalluvar District - 631 209.

2.The Inspector of Police, Podaturpet Police Station, Podaturpet, Thiruvallurvar District - 631 208.

3.P.C.Kumar S/o.Chokklingam Mudaliar, Residing at Othavadai Street, Podaturpet Town, Pallipattu Taluk, Thiruvallur District - 602 001.

4.R.K.Sundari

W/o.Kesavan, residing at No.134, Nallathanirkulam Street, Podaturpet Town, Pallipattu Taluk, Thiruvallur Distirct - 602 001.

Respondent(s) PRAYER To issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other Writ, Order or direction to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action as per law against respondents 3 and 4 who are continuously obstructing peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and trying to manhandle the petitioner. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.V.Ajayakumar For Respondent:

Mr.R.Vinothraja, Govt. Advocate [Crl.Side]

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against respondents 3 and 4, who are continuously obstructing the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and also trying to manhandle him.

2. Mr.V.Ajaykumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondents 3 and 4, who are neighbours, are continuously

disturbing the possession of the petitioner and they have been using abusive language against the members of the petitioner's family. In this regard, the petitioner had sent a complaint dated 10.04.2025 to the second respondent to take action against the respondents 3 and 4. However, due to inaction of the second respondent, the respondents 3 and 4 are behaving in a highhanded manner and are continuously harassing the petitioner.

3. The learned Government Advocate [Criminal Side], on instructions, would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, the second respondent had sent a notice to the petitioner and the third and fourth respondents for their appearance. However, the petitioner had not appeared for enquiry. When the respondent police had gone to the address given by the petitioner in the complaint dated 10.04.2025, the petitioner was not available there. Hence, he submitted that if a fresh complaint is given by the petitioner with his correct address, due enquiry will be conducted and appropriate action will be taken in accordance with law.

4. In view of the above submissions, the petitioner is directed to give a fresh complaint to the second respondent and on such complaint being given, the second respondent shall proceed as per law.

5. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 28-10-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes vrc To 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruthani Range, Thiruvalluvar District - 631 209.

2.The Inspector of Police, Podaturpet Police Station, Podaturpet, Thiruvallurvar District - 631 208.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

vrc 28-10-2025