Ramar v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.04.2025 CORAM :

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

1. The Superintendent of Police, Office of District Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Puliankudi, Tenkasi District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Vasudevanallur Police Station, Sivagiri, Tenkasi District.

4. Velladurai

5. Vairavan ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to conduct enquiry and initiate appropriate action against the respondents No.4 and 5 on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 26.01.2025 and 29.01.2025 as well as the representation to the 1st respondent, dated 30.01.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Robinson For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi (R1-R3) Additional Public Prosecutor 1/4

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to conduct enquiry and initiate appropriate action against the respondents No.4 and 5 on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 26.01.2025 and 29.01.2025 as well as the representation to the 1st respondent, dated 30.01.2025.

2.According to the petitioner, he lodged a complaint against the respondents 4 and 5 on 26.01.2025. Since the same was not considered, he sent another representations on 29.01.2025 and 30.01.2025, but the same were also not considered. Hence this petition. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that the representation of the petitioner, dated 26.01.2025 was closed after conducting an elaborate enquiry. Again, the petitioner has sent representations on 29.01.2025 and 30.01.2025. However, they were also enquired and closed. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication.

2/4

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 close the writ petition, by recording the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that they have closed the representations of the petitioner. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the closure report, in the manner known to law, if he is aggrieved.

09.04.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No PNM To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Office of District Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Puliankudi, Tenkasi District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Vasudevanallur Police Station, Sivagiri, Tenkasi District.

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

3/4

P.DHANABAL , J.

PNM ORDER IN 09.04.2025 4/4