Jeyakumar T v. The Commissioner Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.04.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL T.Jeyakumar ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City.

2. The Assistant Commissioner Of Police, Thirupparankundram Range, Madurai City.

3. The Inspector of Police, Thirunagar Police Station, Madurai City.

... 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 1 and 2 to take appropriate action for harassing the petitioner by the third respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 24.03.2025.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.Prabhu Raj A, For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the third respondent for harassing the petitioner, by considering the representation dated 24.03.2025.

2.According to the petitioner, there is a money dispute pending between the petitioner and others. While so, the money lenders charged exorbitant interest for the amount borrowed by the petitioner and thereby, he lodged a complaint before the respondents on 24.03.2025. The third respondent enquired the same and threatened the petitioner to settle the amount. Therefore, this petition has been filed. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that the money lenders lodged a 2/5

complaint against the petitioner and one of the persons approached this Court and this Court directed the respondent police therein, to consider the representation of the money lender and enquire the matter. Based on the same, they called the petitioner for enquiry. In the mean time, the petitioner also sent the representation, dated 24.03.2025 for taking action against the money lenders and the same is also under enquiry. During enquiry, no any harassment was made and the third respondent did not insist the petitioner to settle the amount. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

4.Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for in this petition and no any representation was sent by the petitioner to the respondents 1 and 2 for taking action against the third respondent, if at all the petitioner aggrieved by the acts of the third respondent, he ought to have sent a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the third respondent.

5.Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the first respondent by way of lodging specific complaint in accordance with law. If any such request is made by the petitioner, the first respondent has to 3/5

consider the same in the manner known to law, after affording opportunity to the opposite party.

6.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. 16.04.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No LR To

1. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City.

2. The Assistant Commissioner Of Police, Thirupparankundram Range, Madurai City.

3. The Inspector of Police, Thirunagar Police Station, Madurai City.

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

4/5

P.DHANABAL , J.

LR 16.04.2025 5/5