V.Deivannai v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.02.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL W.P.(MD) No.4733 of 2025 V.Deivannai.

... Petitioner vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul.

2.The Inspector of Police, Ammayanaickanur Police Station, Dindigul.

3.Kappal @ Periyasamy.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary action on the petitioner's representation dated 21.01.2025. For petitioner : Mr.T.Indrachithu For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 & R2 ***** Page No. 1 of 5

O R D E R

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary action on the petitioner's representation dated 21.01.2025.

2. Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the property in Plot No.7, measuring 2 cents, comprised in Survey No.187/12, situated at Kullalagundu, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul. The third respondent is noway connected with the property, but, claiming some rights over the property, he caused disturbances to the petitioner. While so, on 20.01.2025, the third respondent assaulted the petitioner and thereby, she lodged a complaint on 21.01.2025 before the second respondent police, due to which, they assigned C.S.R.No.30 of 2025. However, no action was taken on the petitioner's representation. Hence, she filed this petition. Page No. 2 of 5

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that they received the complaint from the petitioner and after conducting enquiry, the petitioner herself wanted to withdraw the complaint stating that she will seek remedy before the Civil Court for the land dispute and thereby, the said complaint was closed. However, now the petitioner filed this petition for the same incident. Therefore, nothing survives for adjudication and the petitioner is liable to dismissed.

5. This Court heard both sides and perused the records.

6. Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for in this petition, this Court, without even issuing notice to the private respondent, is inclined to pass order.

7. According to the second respondent police, the representation of the petitioner, dated 21.01.2025 was already considered and the same was closed. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that in this case, nothing survives for further adjudication, however, the petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum as against the Page No. 3 of 5

closure report filed by the second respondent police in accordance with law.

8. Therefore, recording the above said submission of the Additional Public Prosecutor by preserving the liberty of the petitioner to challenge the closure report in the manner known to law, this Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

21.02.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul.

2.The Inspector of Police, Ammayanaickanur Police Station, Dindigul.

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

Page No. 4 of 5

P.DHANABAL,J apd W.P.(MD) No.4733 of 2025 21.02.2025 Page No. 5 of 5