M.Anbuselvam v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL M.Anbuselvam ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District.
3. The Inspector of Police, RS.Mangalam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
4. Arulmaraiselvan ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1 to 3rd respondents to conduct the enquiry in the petitioners petition dated 10.01.2025 pending before 3rd respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Mahendrarajan For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) Page No. 1 of 4
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents no.1 to 3 to conduct the enquiry on the petitioner's complaint dated 10.01.2025.
2. According to the petitioner, there is a dispute pending between the petitioner and the 4th respondent in respect of transfer of ownership of the bus and thereby, the petitioner lodged a complaint against the 4th respondent before the 3rd respondent on 10.01.2025, but the same has not been considered. Hence this petition.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents no.1 to 3 would submit that the petitioner sent a representation dated 10.01.2025 and thereafter, the 3rd respondent has issued summon to the petitioner, but the petitioner has not appeared. Therefore, the enquiry is still pending. If the petitioner appears for enquiry, then they will conduct enquiry and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
4. Considering the prayer sought for in this petition, this Court Page No. 2 of 4
without even issuing notice to the 4th respondent inclined to pass orders in this petition.
5. According to the petitioner, due to the dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent in respect of transfer of ownership of the bus, he lodged a complaint against the 4th respondent before the 3rd respondent, but no action was taken. According to the 3rd respondent, they received the complaint of the petitioner dated 10.01.2025 and thereafter, the petitioner himself not cooperated for enquiry and not even attended for enquiry. Therefore, it is appropriate to direct the petitioner to appear for enquiry before the 3rd respondent on 12.04.2025. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent has to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.01.2025 within one week in accordance with law.
6. With the above said observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
01.04.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No Mac Page No. 3 of 4
P.DHANABAL, J.
Mac To
1. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District.
3. The Inspector of Police, RS.Mangalam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
01.04.2025 Page No. 4 of 4