S.Suresh v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.04.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL S.Suresh ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2.The Inspector of Police, Oomachikulam Police Station, Madurai District.

3.Vallinayagam ... Respondents PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, for bearing the 2nd respondent from interfering in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, which is subject matter of civil suit in O.S.No.110 of 2023 and O.S.No.40 of 2025 under the guise of enquiry on the third respondent's complaint.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) 1/5

For R3 : Mr.Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed to forbear the second respondent from interfering with the civil dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent pending civil suits in O.S.No.110 of 2023 and 40 of 2025 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a civil dispute pending between the petitioner and the third respondent. While so, the third respondent lodged a false complaint against the petitioner in order to grab the property. The second respondent taking advantage of the same interfering into the civil dispute harassing the petitioner. Hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that originally the property belongs to the third respondent and the petitioner was only attempted to grab the property. The civil suits in O.S.No.110 of 2023 and 40 of 2025 are also pending before the District Munsif Court, Melur. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 2/5

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that they received the complaint from one Janakiraman against the petitioner and thereby, they called the petitioner for enquiry and thereafter, the said Janakiraman himself withdrawn the complaint. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication in this case. Moreover, the second respondent has not harassed the petitioner as alleged by him.

5. Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for in this petition and the second respondent also denied the alleged harassment made by him, there is a civil suit pending between the parties, they can work out the remedy before the civil Court.

6. Recording the submission of the second respondent that the second respondent has not harassed the petitioner, this writ petition is closed. No costs.

17.04.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No SN 3/5

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Oomachikulam Police Station, Madurai District 4/5

P.DHANABAL , J.

SN 17.04.2025 5/5