Kamalam G v. The Superintendent Of Police

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

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL G.Kamalam ... Petitioner Vs

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

2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli.

3. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli.

4.N. Rajarathinam

5. N.Jebarathinam ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to depute any one of the officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct fair enquiry on the complaint of the 1/5

petitioner dated 05.03.2025 and take appropriate action against the culprits.

For Petitioner : Mr.K Radhakrishnan, For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to depute any one of the officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct fair enquiry on the complaint of the petitioner dated 05.03.2025 and take appropriate action against the culprits.

2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the property in S.F.Nos.440. 446/1 and 446/2. While so, the private respondents sold the property by forging the documents, thereby, the petitioner sent the representation dated 05.03.2025, to the third respondent, but the same has not been 2/5

considered. Hence this petition.

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that they have received the petitioner's complaint and issued summons to both the parties and enquired the matter. On enquiry, it is found that the subject property was sold based on the UDR patta. Therefore, they closed the petitioner's complaint by advising the parties to challenge the UDR patta before the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned.

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 pass order.

5.According to the petitioner, the private respondents created forged documents and sold the property of the petitioner and thereby, committed serious offence. The third respondent also admitted the receipt of the petitioner's complaint and stated that the same was closed after enquiry.

3/5

6.Recording the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Writ Petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the closure of the complaint in the manner known to law, if she is aggrieved.

16.04.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No LR To

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

2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli.

3. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli.

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

4/5

P.DHANABAL , J.

LR 16.04.2025 5/5