Madras High CourtWP(MD)/2829/2013dismissed

A. Seenu, v. The Director General

2022-09-12Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :12.09.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH A.Seeni ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director General of Police, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.

2.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

4.Shankar, The Inspector of Police, Sakkottai Police Station, Sakkottai, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and

2 to take appropriate actions against the fourth respondent for their illegal activities and subsequently directing the fourth respondent to provide compensation for the loss of the petitioner reputation and paddy, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.02.2013. For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Muthukumar For Respondents :

Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Writ Petition was filed for the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the fourth respondent and to provide compensation for the loss of reputation of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr.S.Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the fourth respondent had registered an FIR in Crime No.30 of 2013 against the

petitioner on the basis of the complaint given by one Kavitha. On investigation, a final report came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.87 of 2013. The proceedings ultimately ended in acquittal. That apart, the petitioner was also a history sheeter in H.S.No.310 of 2013.

4. The nature of relief that has been sought for by the petitioner cannot be decided in this writ petition. If at all the petitioner feels that he has been maliciously prosecuted by the fourth respondent, the forum before which the petitioner has to ventilate his grievance is a civil forum and not in a writ petition.

5. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 12.09.2022 Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No ssb

To 1.The Director General of Police, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.

2.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

4.The Inspector of Police, Sakkottai Police Station, Sakkottai, Sivagangai District.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

ssb 12.09.2022