R. Sadasivam v. The Commissioner Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL W.P(MD) No.7771 of 2025 R.Sadasivam ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai district.

3.Veerammal The Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai district.

4.M.Rajeshkannan ... Respondents PRAYER: Wri Petition filed under Section 226 of Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents no.2 and 3 not to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent under the guise of enquiry based on the petitioner's representation, dated 17.03.2025.

Page No. 1 of 5

For petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 to R3 Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian for R4 *****

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent under guise of enquiry based on the petitioner's representation, dated 17.03.2025.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and fourth respondent. Based on the same, the fourth respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner. Taking advantage of the same, the second respondent, by interfering into the civil dispute, harassed the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation, dated 17.03.2025 and the same has not been considered. Hence, the petitioner filed this petition.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that based on the complaint given by the fourth Page No. 2 of 5

respondent, they registered a case in Crime No.246 of 2025 against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a representation, dated 17.03.2025, but he has not appeared for enquiry. If the petitioner appears for enquiry, they will consider the said representation and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

5. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that the petitioner is the landlord and the fourth respondent is the tenant and there is a dispute between the parties in respect of tenancy. Further, the fourth respondent paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as advance for the tenancy and thereafter, the petitioner demanded another Rs.5,00,000/-, but did not hand over the possession of the property. Thereby, he lodged a complaint before the second respondent and thereafter, FIR has been registered against the petitioner.

6. Heard both sides and perused the records.

7. The prayer sought for in this petition is to direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to harass the petitioner by interfering with the civil dispute. Since based on the complaint given by the fourth respondent, they already Page No. 3 of 5

registered FIR as against the petitioner in Crime No.246 of 2025 and the respondents 2 and 3 also denied the alleged harassment. Hence, it is for the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of this order.

8. With the abovesaid observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

27.03.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai district.

3.Veerammal The Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai district.

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

Page No. 4 of 5

P.DHANABAL,J apd W.P.(MD) No.7771 of 2025 27.03.2025 Page No. 5 of 5