N.Kannan v. The Inspector Of Police

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

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL N.Kannan ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Inspector of Police, Thandikudi Police Station, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District.

2. Thiru R.Ambalavanan, S/o T.S.Ramasamy, Director of Trade and Commerce Government of Tamil Nadu Chennai C/o Special Cell For Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Fort. ... 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 herein to initiate action against the 2nd respondent on the representation of the petitioner dated 04.03.2025 in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Appadurai For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor 1/4

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent to initiate action against the 2nd respondent on the representation of the petitioner, dated 04.03.2025.

2.According to the petitioner, he sent a complaint against the 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent on 24.01.2025. Thereafter, the 1st respondent has issued summons to the 2nd respondent on 07.02.2025 to appear for enquiry on 13.02.2025. But the 2nd respondent has not appeared for enquiry. Again the petitioner has sent another complaint on 13.02.2025, again the 1st respondent issued summons for appearance of 2nd respondent on 20.02.2025, but the 2nd respondent did not appear for enquiry. Again the petitioner has sent another complaint on 20.02.2025, again the 1st respondent issued summons for appearance of 2nd respondent on 04.03.2025, but the 2nd respondent did not appear for enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation dated 04.03.2025, but the same has not been considered. Hence this petition. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner's representation 2/4

was already considered and closed, after enquiry. 4.Since the complaint of the petitioner was considered and closed by the 1st respondent, it is for the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law. Today, copy of closure report is also served to the petitioner.

5.In view of the same, this petition stands closed by preserving the liberty of the petitioner to challenge the closure report in the manner known to law, if he is aggrieved so. 16.04.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No PNM To

1. The Inspector of Police, Thandikudi Police Station, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District.

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

3/4

P.DHANABAL , J.

PNM ORDER IN 16.04.2025 4/4