Aravinth v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.02.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL W.P(MD)No.3465 of 2025 Aravind ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Thoothukudi and District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Kurumbur Police Station, Thoothukudi and District.

3. Velayutham, S/o Ganesha Nadar, 2b, Amman Kovil Street, Thenthiruperai Village, Eral Taluk, Thoothukudi District ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to take appropriate action on complaint dated 21.01.2025.

Page No. 1 of 5

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jegadeeswaran For Respondents :

For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) For R3 : Mr.V.Angusamy

O R D E R

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents no.1 and 2 to take appropriate action on the complaint dated 21.01.2025.

2. According to the petitioner, he is doing business in the name of Shanthi Enterprises manufacturing cement concrete blocks. There is a tenancy dispute pending between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. On 20.01.2025, four people were entered into the building after break open and destroyed everything and the same was intimated to the police help line and he also lodged a complaint, but no action was taken. Thereafter, he made a representation on 22.01.2025 to the respondents no. 1 and 2, but no action was taken. Therefore, he filed this petition.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that there is a tenancy dispute pending between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. Based on the Page No. 2 of 5

complaint, already they registered CSR, but the petitioner did not appear before the respondent police for enquiry and he is not cooperating for the enquiry. If the petitioner cooperates for the enquiry, they will complete the enquiry within a week.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would submit that he is the owner of the property and a civil suit is pending between the parties in respect of the specific performance of contract. While so, the petitioner has lodged a false complaint and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Head both sides and perused the materials on record.

6. Considering the limited scope of the prayer of the petitioner and already the petitioner lodged a complaint dated 21.01.2025 before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent also admitted that they received the complaint, it is appropriate to direct the petitioner to appear before the 2nd respondent on 10.02.2025 and the 2nd respondent is directed to disposed of the representation of the petitioner purely on merits and in accordance with law within one week from the date of this order. Page No. 3 of 5

7. With the above said observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

07.02.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No mac To

1. 1. The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Thoothukudi and District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Kurumbur Police Station, Thoothukudi and District.

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

Page No. 4 of 5

P.DHANABAL , J.

mac W.P(MD)No.3465 of 2025 07.02.2025 Page No. 5 of 5