Jeyakumar v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.04.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Jeyakumar ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Arumanai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

3. Sureshkumar

4. M/s.Jeyachandran Industries Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Manager, M.Prabha Harrison, Hong Kong Complex, 1st Floor,No.10/20, Ramanathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai.

... Respondents 1/5

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus direction to the 1st respondent to direct the 2nd respondent to take action on the petitioners complaint dated 21.03.2025 within a time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr. C.Ezhilarasu, For R1 and R2 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to direct the second respondent to take action on the petitioner's complaint dated 21.03.2025.

2.According to the petitioner, he lodged a complaint against the respondents 3 and 4 on 21.03.2025, but the same has not been considered. Hence this petition.

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2/5

respondent police would submit that the petitioner's representation was already considered and C.S.R.No.264 of 2025 was assigned. After enquiry, the same was closed on 28.03.2025. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication in this matter.

4.Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for in this petition, this Court, without even issuing notice to the private respondents, is inclined to pass order.

5.According to the petitioner, he lodged a complaint against the private respondents before the second respondent, but no action was taken. According to the second respondent, the petitioner's complaint was already considered and closed.

6.Therefore, it is for the petitioner to challenge the closure of the complaint, in the manner known to law, if he is aggrieved. 7.Today, a copy of the closure report is also served to the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

3/5

8.In view of the above, this Writ Petition is closed by preserving the liberty of the petitioner to challenge the closure of the complaint, in the manner known to law.

03.04.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No LR To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Arumanai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

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

4/5

P.DHANABAL , J.

LR 03.04.2025 5/5