T.Pandiyarajan v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 22.01.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS .JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA W.P(MD)No.1137 of 2024 T.Pandiyarajan ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Town South Police Station, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

3.Gnanasekaran .G 4.Subbulakshmi.G 5.Mumtaj, 6.Murugampal, 7.Yasmin Roja, .

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action as against the Respondent Nos. 3 to 7, based on the petitioner's representation, dated 18.11.2023, within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Senthilkumar For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor for R1&2 1/4

ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to take appropriate action as against the private respondents, based on the petitioner's representation, dated 18.11.2023.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner and his wife jointly purchased a house in 5th Ward, Erumaikkara street, Nagalnayakanpatti, Dindigul, bearing Door Nos.86, 86A and 86B measuring 2032 sq.ft., through a registered sale deed, dated 29.03.2022, after mortgaging the said property with Jana Small Finance Bank Limited for a sum of Rs.43,48,000/-. However, the private respondents (respondents 5 to 7) unauthorizedly occupied a portion of the land and in this regard, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Town South Police Station, Dindigul, on 18.11.2023, and till date, no action has been taken by the police.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would contend that the third respondent is also claiming title over the same property and the respondents 5 to 7 are tenants in the said property. 2/4

According to him, since the dispute between the parties is civil in nature, they have closed the complaint given by the present petitioner.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that he purchased the property only from the third respondent and that the fourth respondent, who is no way connected with the property, had entered into a lease agreement with the respondents 5 to 7. Therefore, he contended that necessary action should be taken by the police in this regard.

5. A cursory look of the petition and the affidavit clearly shows that the matter in dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and the police had rightly closed the complaint. The petitioner should approach an appropriate civil Forum, if so advised.

6. With the above observation, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

NCC :

Yes / No 22.01.2024 Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No LS 3/4

R.HEMALATHA,J.

LS To 1.The Superintendent of Police Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Inspector of Police, Town South Police Station, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

22.01.2024 4/4