Chinnavellayan v. The Superintendent Of Police

W.P (MD).No.9746 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.05.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P (MD).No.9746 of 2022 Chinnavellayan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police, Trichy, Trichy District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Uppiliyapuram Police Station, Trichy District.

... Respondents Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent herein to initiate appropriate criminal action under the relevant provisions of law on the basis of the petitioner's complaint, dated 28.04.2022 lodged before the second respondent herein.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prakash For Respondents : Mr.A.Albert James, Government Advocate (crl.)

O R D E R

Heard Mr.K.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Albert James learned Government Advocate (Crl.) appearing for the respondents.

2. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to initiate action under the relevant provisions of law on the basis of the petitioner's complaint, dated 28.04.2022.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's son and Nithya had loved each other and without the petitioner's consent, they got married. On 18.04.2022 at about 7.30 pm., when the petitioner was sitting in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

W.P (MD).No.9746 of 2022 the house yard, the proposed accused drove his vehicle with high speed and dashed against the petitioner and scolded filthy language. Due to which, the petitioner suffered injury. In this regard, the petitioner sent a complaint dated 28.04.2022 to the first respondent. Since no action was taken by the respondents, the Writ Petition came to be filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that it would be suffice if a direction is given to consider the complaint of the petitioner.

6. The learned Government Advocate (crl.) for the respondents would state that the complaint of the petitioner would be considered within a reasonable time.

7. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case projected by the petitioner either in his complaint or in this Writ Petition, the second respondent is directed to consider the complaint of the petitioner dated 28.04.2022, on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

Sd/- Vacation Officer/ Assistant Registrar (CS I) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) rmi/btr To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy, Trichy District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Uppiliyapuram Police Station, Trichy District.

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

+1 CC to M/s.K. PRAKASH, Advocate ( SR-23704[F] dated 13/05/2022 ) W.P (MD).No.9746 of 2022 11.05.2022 MGJ(18.05.2022) 2P 5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2