N.Poomagal v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.03.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL N.Poomagal ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District.

2. The State Represented By, The Inspector of Police, Thisayanvilai Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

3. Sumanbharath

4. Abdul Kadhar

5. Ravikumar

6. Sudalaimadan ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to take appropriate action on petitioner's representation/complaint dated 24.07.2024 within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Maheswaran For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi (R1,R2) Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the 1st Respondent to take appropriate action on petitioner's representation/complaint dated 24.07.2024 within a time frame as fixed by this Court. 2.According to the petitioner, she is the owner of the property in SF No.51/1, 51/4 and 52/1 to an extent of 37 acres. The respondents 3 to 6 were illegally trespassed into the property, cut down the trees and damaged the water pipe lines, thereby, caused damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. In this regard, the petitioner has sent a complaint on 24.07.2024, but the same has not been considered. Hence this petition. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner's complaint was already considered and closed on 13.08.2024 after enquiry. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner stated that she will seek remedy before the concerned Civil forum.

2/5

4.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no enquiry was conducted based on her complaint and without conducting enquiry, the complaint of the petitioner was closed. 5.Since the prayer of the petitioner is to consider her complaint and the same was already considered and closed by the 2nd respondent, it is for the petitioner to challenge the closure report in the manner known to law.

6.In view of the same, this petition is closed by preserving the liberty of the petitioner to challenge the closure report in the manner known to law.

28.03.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No PNM 3/5

To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District.

2. The State Represented By, The Inspector of Police, Thisayanvilai Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

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

4/5

P.DHANABAL , J.

PNM ORDER IN 28.03.2025 5/5