A.Kandasamy v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.01.02018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM CRL.OP.(MD) No.178 of 2018 A.Kandasamy ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendant of Police, Office of the Superintendent Police, Trichy District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Musiri, Trichy District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Thathaiyyangar Pettai Police Station, Trichy District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondent police to register the complaint dated 16.11.2017 and take necessary action within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan For Respondents : Mr.Prabu Ramachandran Government Advocate(crl.side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the third respondent to register a case based on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 16.11.2017. 2.Heard Mr.C.Jeganathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Prabu Ramachandran, learned Government Advocate(Crl.side), appearing for the respondents.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has entered into a sale agreement with one Ramasamy for purchasing a land for Rs.26,25,000/- in respect of 2.92 acres and in pursuance of the said agreement a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-was paid on 17.08.2016, and subsequently a sum of Rs.16,25,000/- was also paid on 16.12.2016, and thereafter, the sale deed was executed with regard to the property measuring about 2.73 acres. He further submitted that the remaining 0.19 cents was omitted to mention in the sale deed. Hence, the petitioner has requested the said Ramasamy to execute another sale deed with regard to the remaining 0.19 cents. He further submitted that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

said Ramasamy, not only refused to execute the sale deed with regard to remaining 0.19 cents, but also threatened the petitioner to kill him and also by saying his caste name and hence the petitioner gave a complaint before the third respondent, but without making any enquiry the third respondent has closed the said complaint. 4.The learned Government Advocate(crl.side) has submitted that after receipt of the complaint, both the parties have been called upon for enquiry, and during enquiry both the parties have submitted written statements stating that they will settle the issue before the Civil Court and accordingly, the said complaint was closed. 5.Recording the said submission, this Criminal Original Petition is closed. It is open to the petitioner to seek remedy before the appropriate forum.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendant of Police, Office of the Superintendent Police, Trichy District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Musiri, Trichy District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Thathaiyyangar Pettai Police Station, Trichy District.

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

+1cc to M/S.VEERA ASSOCIATES, Advocate SR.No. 41085 CRL.OP.(MD) No.178 of 2018 SMI/PNN JM/SV MMS/SAR 2/25.01.2018/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/