Muniyasamy v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.01.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Muniyasamy .. Petitioner Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of Police Sivagangai District

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Sivagangai Sub Division Sivagangai District

3. The Inspector of Police Kalaiyarkovil Police Station Sivagangai District .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records connected with the impugned order in Na.Ka.No. 195/R1 PS/SVG/2024 dated 21.12.2024 on the file of the respondent no. 3 and quash the same as illegal, consequently to direct the respondents for grant permission for 1/5

conduct agitation on 20.01.2025 at about 5.00 PM or any other earliest date at Theradi Ground, Kalaiyarkovil, Sivagangai District by considering petitioner's representation dated 03.01.2025 within the time stipulated by this Court For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No. 195/R1 PS/SVG/2024 dated 21.12.2024.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that on 08.12.2024 at about 9.00 am., one Louis Pitchai who is the District Secretary of Periyar Ambekar Makkal Kazhagam had gone to Gokulam medicals for purchasing medicines for his goat and after purchasing the same while he was returning back he was waylaid by Jenifer Jeyaraj, Parisutham and Raja and taken away his two wheeler and also assaulted him for which the petitioner has lodged complaint and a case has been registered in 2/5

Crime No.500 of 2024. In offensive the said Jeyaraj had lodged complaint against Louis Pitchai and a case has been registered in Crime No.499 of 2024. The contention of the petitioner is that the police has not conducted proper investigation as per the relevant provision of law and they have omitted to include certain offences. Hence he intended to conduct protest on 20.01.2025, the respondent police has rejected the same stating that there is a prohibitory order in force and there is a disturbance to the public.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has sought police protection for conducting protest for not properly conducting investigation in Crime No.500 of 2024. It is a case and case in counter. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the investigation or deletion of certain provisions of law done by the respondent police he can very well approach the Inspector of Police who shall consider the same and take appropriate steps. Further the petitioner shall also approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate or this Court for appropriate relief and not by holding protest for a dispute between two persons. 3/5

4. It is seen that the petitioner has sought permission to hold protest which cannot be done for the injustice caused to him and not conducting proper investigation in Crime No.500 of 2024. Further it is a case and case in counter and if the petitioner is aggrieved he shall approach the respondent police or courts in the manner known to law.

5. In view of the same, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

20.01.2025 Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes/No aav To

1. The Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of Police Sivagangai District

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Sivagangai Sub Division, Sivagangai District

3. The Inspector of Police Kalaiyarkovil Police Station Sivagangai District

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.

4/5

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

aav 20.01.2025 5/5