Ramisal Begum v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.02.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL W.P(MD) No.3796 of 2025 Ramisal Begum ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli.

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli.

3. Mohammed Anisha

4. Mohammed Sindha Thanseem Khan

5. Moahmmed Hassan Wasim Khan

6. Mohammada Thasneema Fatima ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent 1 and 2 to conduct fair enquiry upon the petitioner representation dated 11.01.2025 in accordance with law.

For petitioner : Mr.B.Michael Sebastin for Mr.P.Rajeshkumar For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Addl. Public Prosecutor Page No. 1 of 6

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking direction, to direct the respondent 1 and 2 to conduct fair enquiry upon the petitioner representation dated 11.01.2025.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would submit that the petitioner made a complaint as against the 3 to 6 respondents and the was not considered and thereby he sent a representation on 11.01.2025 and the same was also not considered. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner already made a complaint and the same was enquired by the respondent and the same was disposed as civil in nature. In fact, it was not a civil dispute and it involves cheating and thereby criminal offence would be attracted. But, the respondent police have failed to consider the same. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a representation on 11.01.2025 and the same is pending with the 1st and 2nd respondents. Therefore, they have to conduct fair enquiry.

Page No. 2 of 6

3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that already the petitioner submitted a representation in respect of money dispute and the same was elaborately enquired by the 1st and 2nd respondents in the presence of both the parties and thereafter, the same was closed as civil dispute and the parties are advised to approach competent civil Court. While so, again, the petitioner sent a representation for the same set of allegations and the respondent police assure that they will complete the enquiry within a period of one week.

4. Considering the limited scope of prayer sought for in this petition this Court without issuing notice to the private respondents is inclined to pass orders.

5. According to the petitioner he sent a representation on 11.01.2025 and the same has not been considered by the official respondent. The respondent police also assured to conduct enquiry and to dispose the same within a period of one week. Page No. 3 of 6

6. In view of the above submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents, this Court directs the 1st and 2nd respondents to complete the enquiry within a period of one week from the date of this order.

7. With the above said observations, this writ petition is closed. No costs.

13.02.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No gvn Page No. 4 of 6

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli.

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli.

Page No. 5 of 6

P.DHANABAL,J gvn W.P(MD) No.3796 of 2025 13.02.2025 Page No. 6 of 6