Jesu Baskar v. The Superintendent Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 05.07.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR W.A.(MD)No.864 of 2017 Jesu Baskar ... Appellant Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District,

2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Sivagangai District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, 4.Mr.Irudhayam 5.Mr.Sathishkumar 6.Mr.Ramasamy 7.Ms.Aravalli 8.Mr.Panchavarnam

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 08.06.2017 passed in W.P.(MD)No.10702 of 2017 on the file of this Court. Prayer in WP(MD). 10702/ 2017 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to not to interfere into the financial dispute of the petitioner on the complaints of respondents 6 to 8 by considering the representation made by the petitioner to the 1st respondent on 29.05.2017. For Appellant : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Murugan Government Advocate

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated 08.06.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.10702 of 2017.

2. Heard Mr.T.A.Ebenezer, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

3. The appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere with the alleged financial dispute which is subject matter of the complaints said to have been given by the respondents 6 to 8.

4. The learned Single Judge by taking note of the fact that petition enquiry is only pending, was pleased to direct the respondent police to proceed as per law. It was also ordered that during pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner shall not be harassed.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that despite the above said order, investigation was not proceeded in a right direction, which has been corrected now.

6. Be that as it may, the non-compliance of the order of the learned single Judge on the ground of appeal, even otherwise we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Admittedly, the interest of the petitioner has been protected by directing the respondent police not to harass which is also a factual position and even as per the submission made by the counsel for the appellant. In such view of the matter, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District,

2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Sivagangai District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, +1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.63713 +1cc to Mr.T.A.Ebenezer, Advocate Sr.No.63559 SM/AKV VB/KKR/SAR3/13.07.2017/3P/6C WA(MD)No.864 of 2017 05.07.2017