Arumugam v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL W.P(MD)No.5832 of 2025 Arumugam ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2. The Inspector of Police, Kundrakudi Police Station, Sivagangai District.

3. Mathavan

4. Karmegam ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2nd respondent to conclude the enquiry in connection with C.S.R.No.544 of 2024 within time frame as fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr. D.S.Haroon Rasheed For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) Page No. 1 of 4

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the 2nd respondent to conclude the enquiry in connection with C.S.R.No.544 of 2024 within time frame fixed by this Court.

2. According to the petitioner, he lodged a complaint before the 2nd respondent on 08.12.2024, for cheating of money based on the agreement and the same was assigned C.S.R.No.544 of 2024 and thereafter, the 2nd respondent has not taken any steps. Therefore, he sent a representation dated 28.02.2025 to the 1st respondent, but no action was taken. Hence, this petition.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents no. 1 and 2 would submit that the 2nd respondent received the complaint from the petitioner. Thereafter, they assigned C.S.R.No.544 of 2024 and the same was elaborately enquired and closed as civil dispute. Therefore, the petitioner has to approach the appropriate forum for appropriate remedy and nothing survives for further adjudication in this case.

Page No. 2 of 4

4. Considering the limited prayer sought for in this petition, this Court without even issuing notice to the private respondents inclined to dispose of the petition

5. According to the respondents no.1 and 2, the representation of the petitioner was already considered and closed as civil in nature. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to law. In view of the same, preserving the liberty of the petitioner to challenge the closure report in the manner known to law, this writ petition is closed. No costs.

05.03.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No Mac Page No. 3 of 4

P.DHANABAL , J.

Mac To

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

2. The Inspector of Police, Kundrakudi Police Station, Sivagangai District.

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

W.P(MD)No.5832 of 2025 05.03.2025 Page No. 4 of 4