Madras High CourtWP(MD)/17455/2015dismissed

Chandran v. The Superintendent Of Police

2016-01-04Honourable Mr Justice S. Vaidyanathan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.01.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P(MD)No.17455 of 2015 Chandran ... Petitioner -vs1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Vilampatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation dated 11.09.2015 and pass appropriate orders within a time frame as fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Chellapandian For Respondents : Mr.D.Muruganandham Addl. Govt. Pleader

O R D E R

The petitioner seeks for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation dated 11.09.2015 and pass appropriate orders.

2. Mr.P.Chellapandian, counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a case in Crime No.55 of 2014 has been registered against the petitioner on 27.11.2014, for an offence under Section 302 of IPC and the petitioner was arrested and subsequently, enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that, when he was in prison, yet another case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.17 of 2015, for offences under Sections 341 and 506(i) IPC., on the ground that the petitioner and others threatened one Iyyavu, father of the victim. Further, another case was also registered on 06.08.2015 in Crime No.106 of 2015 against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner and his brothers have threatened the said Iyyavu.

It is further submitted that the petitioner has been granted bail in all the cases and that the 2nd respondent is in the habit of making false cases against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is neither a rowdy nor a habitual offender and unnecessarily, cases have been filed against him and his family members. It is further submitted that the petitioner has made a representation dated 11.09.2015 to the 1st respondent and the same has not been considered so far. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the aforesaid relief.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. However, Mr.D.Muruganandham, Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the averments and the submission of the petitioner are far from acceptance, since only after a fair investigation, the cases have been registered against the petitioner and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. I have heard the counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. I find much force in the contention of the respondents. If the petitioner has got any grievance, he has to challenge the act of the police in the aforesaid crime numbers, which would be dealt with by the appropriate Court and therefore, I am not inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True copy/ Sub AssistantRegistrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Vilampatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

+1cc to special Government Pleader sR.No.453 sm:JGB-DP:19.1.2016:2P/4c W.P(MD)No.17455 of 2015 04.01.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/