Murugan v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.02.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL W.P(MD) No.3970 of 2025 Murugan ... Petitioner vs.

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

2. The Inspector of Police, Perungudi Police Station, Madurai District.

3. Chinna Irulappan ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to take appropriate action as against the third respondent on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 08.01.2025 to the second respondent, based on the representation dated 20.01.2025 made by the petitioner to the first respondent in person.

For petitioner : Mr.C.Kannathasan For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor Page No. 1 of 4

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking direction to direct the 1st respondent to take appropriate action as against the third respondent on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 08.01.2025 to the second respondent, based on the representation dated 20.01.2025 made by the petitioner to the first respondent in person.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would submit that he is the owner of the property comprised in S.No.83 and 84 to an extent of 40 cents situated at Solanguruni Village. The third respondent created some documents and forged some documents, and trespassed into the land and started construction. Therefore, he lodged a complaint on 08.01.2025 to the second respondent and the same has not been considered. Thereafter, he sent a representation on 20.01.2025, but the same was not considered. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 would submit that they received a representation of the petitioner and the respondent police have assigned CSR.No.35/2025 and after elaborate enquiry the complaint was closed on 11.02.2025. Page No. 2 of 4

4. In view of the above said facts, since the representation of the petitioner was already closed by the second respondent, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate steps to challenge the closure of the complaint in the manner known to law.

5. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

14.02.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No gvn Page No. 3 of 4

P.DHANABAL,J gvn To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

2. The Inspector of Police, Perungudi Police Station, Madurai District.

W.P(MD) No.3970 of 2025 14.02.2025 Page No. 4 of 4