Raja R 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 R.Raja ... Petitioner Vs

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

2. The Inspector of Police, Vedachandur Police Station, Dindigul District.

3. Chinnakodeeswaram

4. Mohan

5. Meena

6. Dharman

7. Prakash

8. Pappa

9. Sumathi

10. Karthick ... Respondents 1/6

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 herein to take appropriate action on the petitioner's complaint dated 12.03.2025 and 07.04.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Ezhilarasu, For R1 and R2 : 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 herein to take appropriate action on the petitioner's complaint dated 12.03.2025 and 07.04.2025.

2.According to the petitioner, he lodged a complaint against the private respondents before the second respondent on 12.03.2025, but no action was taken and therefore, he again sent a representation on 07.04.2025, but the same was also not considered. Hence this petition. 2/6

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that based on the petitioner's representation, C.S.R.No.458 of 2025 was assigned and again the petitioner's daughter, namely, Sathyadevi, lodged a complaint, for which, C.S.R.No.459 of 2025 was assigned. Both the complaints are under enquiry. The respondent police will conduct enquiry and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

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, he lodged a complaint against the private respondents, but no action was taken. The second respondent also admitted the receipt of the petitioner's complaint and assigned C.S.R.No.458 of 2025 and now, the same is under enquiry. 6.At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner represented that instead of the Inspector of Police, Vadamadurai Police Station, Dindigul District, it has been wrongly mentioned as Inspector of 3/6

Police, Vedachandur Police Station, Dindigul District. 7.Therefore, the Inspector of Police, Vadamadurai Police Station, Dindigul District, is directed to conduct enquiry upon the petitioner's representation and take appropriate decision, within a period of fifteen days, from the date of this order in accordance with law. 8.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. 16.04.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No LR 4/6

To

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

2. The Inspector of Police, Vedachandur Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

copy to The Inspector of Police, Vadamadurai Police Station, Dindigul District.

5/6

P.DHANABAL , J.

LR 16.04.2025 6/6