R.Maruthuthangam v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.03.2025 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL R.Maruthuthangam ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
2. The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar West Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
3. Velmurugan ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents No.1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the 3rd Respondent, by conducting an enquiry based on the petitioners representation dated 02.11.2024.
1/6
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Krishnasamy For R1 and R2 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the third respondent, by conducting an enquiry based on the petitioner's representation dated 02.11.2024.
2.According to the petitioner, the third respondent entered into an agreement with the petitioner for rent of vehicle and the third respondent agreed to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- per month as rent. To that effect an agreement was also executed on 05.07.2024. The third respondent used the vehicle but as per the agreement, he never paid any amount. Therefore, the petitioner asked the third respondent to return the vehicle and pay the rent but, he refused the same. Then, the petitioner lodged the online complaint dated 28.10.2024 and thereafter, another complaint has been lodged on 02.11.2024 and finally, he sent the representation, dated 2/6
18.11.2024, but the same have not been considered. Hence this petition. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner's representation was already considered and since it is money dispute based on a contract, the petitioner's representation was closed. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication.
4.In reply, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that no enquiry was conducted by the second respondent and a copy of the closure report was not served to the petitioner. 5.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 orders.
6.According to the petitioner, there is an agreement between the petitioner and the third respondent. Based on the same, the third respondent is liable to pay monthly rent of Rs.45,000/- to the petitioner. But the third respondent has not paid the said amount. According to the 3/6
respondent police, the petitioner's representation was already considered and closed as the matter involves money dispute. 7.Since the petitioner's representation was already closed after enquiry, it is for the petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to law, if he is aggrieved. Since the closure report was not served to the petitioner, the second respondent is directed to serve a copy of the closure report forthwith.
8.In view of the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Writ Petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the closure report in the manner known to law. 14.03.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No LR 4/6
To
1. The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
2. The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar West Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
P.DHANABAL , J.
LR 14.03.2025 6/6