B.Swithika v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL B.Swithika ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Rural Division, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent herein to take necessary action on petitioner's complaint, dated 31.01.2025 and letter, dated 11.02.2025 and this Court may also direct first respondent to appoint Women Police Officer instead of Dindigul Taluk Police Station in accordance with law and as per dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari - Vs1/5

Government of Uttar Pradesh and others within the time stipulated by this Court and pass such further or other orders as this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Dhinakar For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The present petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent herein to take necessary action on petitioner's complaint, dated 31.01.2025 and letter, dated 11.02.2025.

2. According to the petitioner, there is a dispute between the petitioner and her brother in respect of sharing the retirement benefits of their mother. Therefore, the brother of the petitioner abused the petitioner with filthy language and also looted all the terminal benefits of their mother and purchased the properties in his name. When the same was questioned by the petitioner, the brother of the petitioner beaten her and attacked with wooden log and caused injuries. Therefore, she lodged a complaint on 31.01.2025 before the respondents 1 and 2 but no action 2/5

was taken. Thereafter, she sent a representation to the District Collector on 03.02.2025 and again on 11.02.2025, she sent a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 but no action was taken. Hence, the petitioner filed this petition.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that there is a dispute between the petitioner and his brother in respect of sharing the retirement benefits of her mother and thereby, the petitioner lodged a complaint against her brother alleging that he assualted and abused obscene words. The said complaint was enquired and thereafter, it was closed as money dispute. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication in the present case.

4. This Court had heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. The prayer of the petitioner is to take action based on the complaint given by the petitioner but the same was closed by the second respondent after conducting enquiry. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to 3/5

take appropriate steps to challenge the above said closure report, if she is aggrieved. Once the respondents conducted enquiry and closed thereafter, the petitioner has to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

6. In view of the same, by preserving the liberty of the petitioner to challenge the closure of the complaint in the manner known to law, this writ petition stands closed. 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, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Rural Division, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

4/5

P.DHANABAL, J.

BTR 18.03.2025 5/5