Meenal v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.03.2025

CORAM

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

1.The Superintendent of Police, 2.The Inspector of Police, Parthibanoor Police Station, Parthibanoor, ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to take appropriate action on the petitioner's complaint, dated 06.03.2025 in terms of Lalita Kumari Vs State of U.P reported in 2014 (2) SCC1 within the stipulated time fixed by this Court and pass such further or other orders as this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Satheesh Kumar 1/6

For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor For Proposed Party : Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan

ORDER

The present petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take appropriate action on the petitioner's complaint, dated 06.03.2025.

2. According to the petitioner, there is a dispute between the parties in respect of property in S.No.11/3C. While so, one Mahalingam dumped the crushed jally and sand in the property of the petitioner. When the same was questioned by them, the said Mahalingalm abused obscene words and pushed down the petitioner and also caused criminal intimidation. Therefore, she lodged a complaint on 05.04.2023 and thereafter, she sent a complaint on 06.03.2025 but the same has not been considered and only issued CSR No.85 of 2025. Therefore, the petitioner filed this petition.

2/6

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that they received the complaint from the petitioner and issued CSR No.85 of 2025 and the same is pending for enquiry and they will conduct enquiry and dispose of the same within a week.

4. Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan, represent that he is the respondent in CSR and without impleading him, this petition is filed. However, since the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings and before taking cognizance, no right of audience to the respondent, this Court declined to hear the respondent, who is not a party to the proceedings.

5. Since the prayer of the petitioner is to take appropriate action based on the complaint, dated 06.03.2025 and the same is under enquiry by the second respondent in CSR No.85 of 2025, it is for the second respondent to take appropriate action and to dispose of the same in the manner known to law. It is needless to mention that if the matter is pertaining to civil dispute, then the second respondent has to follow the 3/6

circular issued by his higher authorities in this regard. However, if any cognizable offences made out, then he can act in accordance with law.

6. In view of the same, this Court directs the second respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 06.03.2025 in accordance with law, within a period of one (1) week from the date of this order.

7. With the above said observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 18.03.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR To 1.The Superintendent of Police, 4/6

2.The Inspector of Police, Parthibanoor Police Station, Parthibanoor, 5/6

P.DHANABAL, J.

BTR 18.03.2025 6/6