Sridhar Prabhu D v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL W.P(MD) No.9833 of 2025 D.Sridhar Prabhu ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.

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

3.Karthikraja ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st and 2nd Respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 21.03.2025 and consequently, direct the 2nd Respondent to investigate and take necessary action as per law as against the 3rd respondent and others within a stipulated time as may be fixed by this Court. For petitioner :Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl side) Page No. 1 of 5

*****

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 21.03.2025 and consequently, direct the second respondent to investigate and take necessary action as per law as against the third respondent and others.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner lodged a complaint against the third respondent for job racketeering, but no action was taken by the second respondent. Hence, he sent a representation, dated 21.03.2025, but the same also has not been considered. Hence, he filed this petition.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl side) for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the petitioner's representation is under enquiry. Further, they called the third respondent and he agrees to return the amount and also paid a part of the amount to the petitioner. However, he has not repaid the entire amount. Therefore, the enquiry is still pending. However, they will complete the enquiry and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

Page No. 2 of 5

4. Considering the prayer sought for in this petition, this Court, without issuing notice to the third respondent, is inclined to pass orders.

5. According to the petitioner, he sent a representation to the second respondent as against the third respondent for job racketeering, but no action was taken. The second respondent also admitted the receipt of the representation from the petitioner and the same is under enquiry. Therefore, recording the above said submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl side), this Court directs the second respondent to complete the enquiry and dispose of the same within a period of 15 days from the date of this order.

6. With the above said directions and observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

08.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd Page No. 3 of 5

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.

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

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

Page No. 4 of 5

P.DHANABAL,J apd W.P.(MD) No.9833 of 2025 08.04.2025 Page No. 5 of 5