C. Subramani v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.03.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL C. Subramani ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Inspector of Police, Land Grabbing Division, Superintendent of Police Office, Dindigul District.

3.Paulkannan, 4.A.Paneer Selvam 5.A.Natrayan ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary action against the respondents 3 to 5, based on the petitioner's complaint, dated 10.03.2025, within the 1/5

period stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mrs.A.Charumathi For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Nos.1 & 2 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 necessary action against the respondents 3 to 5, based on the petitioner's complaint, dated 10.03.2025. 2.According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the property in S.F.No.421/1B to an extent of 0.33.00 ares at Ottanchathiram Village and Town, Dindigul District. While so, the respondents 4 and 5, on 19.02.2025 trespassed into the property assaulted the petitioner, thereby, he lodged a complaint on 10.03.2025, for which, the second respondent called the petitioner for enquiry on 14.03.2025. Without any enquiry, the enquiry was postponed to 21.03.2025 and thereafter, no action was taken. Hence this petition.

2/5

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that based on the petitioner's complaint, they issued summons to both the parties. The petitioner has not produced any documents. If he produces the relevant documents, they will consider the petitioner's representation and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

4.Since the prayer of the petitioner is to take necessary action against the respondents 3 and 5, based on the complaint dated 10.03.2025 and the second respondent also admitted the receipt of the petitioner's representation, it is for the second respondent to take appropriate decision after conducting enquiry. 5.Therefore, the second respondent is directed to conduct enquiry upon the petitioner's complaint by affording opportunity to both the parties and take appropriate action within a period of fifteen days, in accordance with law.

3/5

6.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. 24.03.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No LR To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Inspector of Police, Land Grabbing Division, Superintendent of Police Office, Dindigul District.

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

4/5

P.DHANABAL , J.

LR 24.03.2025 5/5