Madras High CourtWP(MD)/1117/2025disposed of

K. Balakaruppiah @ Balakrishna Mariyammal v. The Superintendent Of Police

2025-02-07Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.02.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL K.Bala Karuppiah @ Balakrishna Mariyammal ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

3.Mahalakshmi ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct an enquiry against the third respondent as per the representation made by the petitioner, dated 23.09.2024 and take necessary action and registered the FIR against third respondent within the time limit prescribed by this Court and pass such further or other orders as this Court. 1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.K.C.Ramalingam For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate For R-3 : Mr.M.Jothibasu

ORDER

The present petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct an enquiry against the third respondent as per the representation made by the petitioner, dated 23.09.2024 and take necessary action and to register the FIR against third respondent within the time limit prescribed by this Court.

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents would submit that already the representation of the petitioner was considered and the same was closed. During the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner failed to produce any documents to substantitate her contention and also she refused to give statement.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the private respondent also agreed the same and after enquiry, the complaint was closed. However, in reply, the 2/4

learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that no enquiry was conducted and no summon was served to her. Without her knowledge, the enquiry was conducted and closed.

4. Since already the representation of the petitioner was considered and the same was closed, it is for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before appropriate forum in the manner known to law.

5. With the above said observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

07.02.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

3/4

P.DHANABAL, J.

BTR 07.02.2025 4/4