Balamurugan v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Balamurugan ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2. The Thashildhar, Singampunari, Sivagangai District.

3. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Sivagangai District.

4. The Inspector of Police, Singampunari Police Station, Sivagangai District.

5. A. Subramani

6. Raja

7. Haritha

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to direct the 3rd and 4th respondents not to disturb and compel to vacate him Page No. 1 of 6

from the petitioner's lawful enjoyment and possession of his Law Office located at GR Survey No.557/10A, Ward No.10, Door No.78, North Singampunari Revenue Village, Singampunari Taluk, Sivagangai District, based on the petitioners representation dated 04.09.2024 and 22.02.2025 within stipulated time limit as fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arun Prasanth For R2 : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar Government Advocate For R1, R3 & R4 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the 3rd and 4th respondents not to disturb and compel to vacate him from the petitioner's lawful enjoyment and possession of his Law Office located at GR Survey No.557/10A, Ward No.10, Door No.78, North Singampunari Revenue Village, Singampunari Taluk, Sivagangai District, based on the petitioner's representation dated 04.09.2024 and 22.02.2025, within stipulated time limit fixed by this Court.

2. According to the petitioner, there is a civil dispute pending between the petitioner and the private respondents and thereby, the Page No. 2 of 6

respondents no.3 and 4 frequently called the petitioner for enquiry. Already he sent a representation dated 22.02.2025 and explained all the facts. However, they frequently called the petitioner for enquiry and harassed the petitioner. Therefore, he has filed this petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents no.1, 3 and 4 would submit that based on the complaint given by the private respondents, the 3rd respondent called the petitioner for enquiry. Apart from that, they have not harassed the petitioner and the enquiry is still pending. However, they will complete the enquiry within a week.

4. Since the prayer of the petitioner is not harass the petitioner, this Court even without issuing notice to the private respondents no.5 to 7 inclined to pass orders.

5. According to the petitioner, the 3rd and 4th respondents have harassed the petitioner, but the 3rd and 4th respondents denied the alleged harassment. However, the 3rd respondent has admitted that, based on the complaint given by the private respondents no.5 to 7, they called the Page No. 3 of 6

petitioner for enquiry and the same is still pending. Therefore, this Court recording the above said submission of the 3rd respondent, directs the 3rd respondent to complete the enquiry in accordance with law within a period of one week.

6. With the above said observations and directions, this writ petition is closed. No costs.

19.03.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No Mac Page No. 4 of 6

To

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

2. The Thashildhar, Singampunari, Sivagangai District.

3. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Sivagangai District.

4. The Inspector of Police, Singampunari Police Station, Sivagangai District.

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

Page No. 5 of 6

P.DHANABAL, J.

Mac 19.03.2025 Page No. 6 of 6