← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/3420/2025disposed of

M.Karuppanan v. The Superintendent Of Police

2025-02-06Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.02.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL M.Karuppanan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai, Madurai District.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to take action upon the petitioner's representation, dated 08.10.2024 (CSR No. 456/2024) and dated 11.12.2024 (CSR No.591/2024) and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Santhakumaresan For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor 1/5

ORDER

The present petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take action upon the petitioner's representations, dated 08.10.2024 (CSR No. 456/2024) and dated 11.12.2024 (CSR No. 591/2024)

2. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the second respondent police on 08.10.2024 in CSR.No.456/2024 for the gold ornaments of the petitioner was stolen by breaking the door but the second respondent has not conducted any enquiry and not registered any FIR. Therefore, again he lodged another complaint on 11.12.2024 to take action against the accused for the occurrence took place on 07.10.2024 in CSR.No. 591/2024, dated 11.12.2024 but thereafter, no action was taken based on the complaint given by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition to 2/5

consider the representation of the petitioner and to take action upon the petitioner's representation.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that there is a family dispute pending between the petitioner and his daughter-in-law. Thereby, he lodged a complaint and the second respondent conducted elaborate enquiry and thereafter, issued CSR.No. 456/2024 for the first complaint and CSR.No.591 of 2024 for the second complaint. Both the complaints were elaborately enquired and on enquiry, the daughter-in-law of the petitioner agreed to hand over the jewels and the petitioner also agreed for that. Therefore, the petitioner closed one of those complaints. Hence, nothing survives for further adjudication since already the complaint was closed.

5. Since already the representations of the petitioner, dated 08.10.2024 and 11.12.2024 were enquired and closed, it is for the respondents to challenge those orders in the manner known to law, if he is aggrieved. Today the copy of the closure report also furnished to the learned Counsel appearing for the 3/5

petitioner. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to challenge the said closure report in the manner known to law.

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

06.02.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai, Madurai District.

4/5

P.DHANABAL, J.

BTR 06.02.2025 5/5