Chinnadurai.M v. The Superintendent Of Police

W.P(MD).No.11219 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.06.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM W.P(MD).No.11219 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD)No.8010 of 2022 Chinnadurai.M, ... Petitioner Vs

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

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

3. Manokaran, ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to instruct the second respondent not to interfere with the civil dispute among the petitioner's family, on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 06.05.2022. For Petitioner : M/s.Veerachamy.M, For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus, seeking a direction to the first respondent to instruct the second respondent not to interfere with the civil dispute among the petitioner's family, on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 06.05.2022.

2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father had purchased a vacant land measuring to an extent two acres comprised in S.No.959/1, situated at Vilpatty Village, kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District, fifty year ago. Further, he stated that the third respondent/Manokaran, is one of his elder brother, during the re-survey, a patta has been issued in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

W.P(MD).No.11219 of 2022 the name of the third respondent. Taking advantage of the revenue records, the third respondent gave trouble to the petitioner. Hence, he lodged a complaint.

Thereafter, the third respondent/Manokaran, also lodged a complaint against the petitioner. Then, under the influence of the third respondent, the second respondent interfered in the matter and troubling the petitioner. Hence this petition has been filed. 3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that after receiving the complaint, the second respondent enquired the matter and found that there is a civil dispute between the relatives, closed the complaint and advised them to approach the civil Court for getting appropriate remedies. 4.I have considered the submissions made by both the Counsels. 5.Considering the fact that the complaint given by the third respondent against the petitioner has been closed by the second respondent, as the matter is civil in nature, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) // True Copy // /06/2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) lr To

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

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

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

+1 CC to M/s.M. VEERACHAMY, Advocate ( SR-25693[F] dated 14/06/2022 ) W.P(MD).No.11219 of 2022 10.06.2022 NSN(CO) GC(23.06.2022) 2P 5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2