B.Maheswaran v. The Commissioner Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL B.Maheswaran ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Thilayar Thidal Police Station, Madurai.
3.Rabiyathul Saburai, Empire Car Jewels, Palayankottai, Tirunelveli.
4.Jaffer Siddiq, Empire Car Jewels, Palayankottai, Tirunelveli.
... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 1/5
and 2 to take appropriate action and register the compliant against the respondents 3 and 4 herein based on the compliant given by the petitioner, dated 08.01.2024 and pass such further or other orders as this Court. For Petitioner : M/s.K.Varshini For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The present petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action and register the case against the respondents 3 and 4 herein based on the compliant given by the petitioner, dated 08.01.2024.
2. According to the petitioner, he is doing business supplying car spare parts (i.e.,) Ambika Auto Accessories. While so, on the last April, one Rabiyathul Saburai and his husband, Jaffer Siddiq came to his shop and represented that they owned one shop, namely, "Empire Car Jewels" and promised to purchase goods regularly and also purchased spare parts for a sum of Rs.15,000/- and promised to pay the amount within a week. Thereafter, he came to know that they cheated not only the petitioner but also so many other 2/5
persons. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the second respondent police but they have not taken any action. Hence, the present petition.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the official respondents would submit that already the representation of the petitioner, dated 08.01.2024 was considered and closed. Therefore, the petitioner has to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
4. Considering the limited scope of prayer in this petition, this Court without issuing notice to the respondents 3 and 4 decided to pass orders.
5. According to the petitioner, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the second respondent police as against the respondents 3 and 4 and the same has not been considered. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the official respondents would submit that already the representation of the petitioner, dated 08.01.2024 was considered and the same was closed on 28.03.2024. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the said closure order in the manner known to law. 3/5
6. With the above said observations, this writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
10.02.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Thilayar Thidal Police Station, Madurai.
4/5
P.DHANABAL, J.
BTR 10.02.2025 5/5