P.Palraj v. The Superintendent Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.04.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL P.Palraj ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nilakkottai, Dindigul District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Pattiveeranpatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

4. Deepan Karthick ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents no.1 and 2 herein to take appropriate action on the petitioner's complaint dated 30.03.2025 and 02.04.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Ezhilarasu For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) Page No. 1 of 4

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents no.1 and 2 to take appropriate action on the petitioner's complaint dated 30.03.2025 and 02.04.2025.

2. According to the petitioner, he lodged a complaint against the 4th respondent on 30.03.2025 and no action was taken. Again, he sent a representation dated 02.04.2025, for that also no action was taken. Therefore, he has filed this petition.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents no.1 to 3 would submit that there is a dispute in respect of business transaction between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and thereby, the earlier complaint was lodged and the same was assigned C.S.R.No.655 of 2025 and after enquiry, it was closed. Again, the petitioner for the same set of allegations sent a representation and therefore, based on the representation, the 3rd respondent issued summon to the parties for enquiry and the enquiry was fixed on 23.04.2025. After enquiry, they will take appropriate action in accordance with law.

Page No. 2 of 4

4. Considering the prayer sought for in the petition, this Court without even issuing notice to the 4th respondent inclined to pass orders in this petition.

5. According to the petitioner, he sent a representation dated 02.04.2025 and the 3rd respondent has also admitted the receipt of the representation of the petitioner and the same is under enquiry. Therefore, it is for the 3rd respondent to conduct enquiry and take appropriate action in accordance with law. In view of the same, this Court directs the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of this order.

6. With the above said observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

22.04.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No Mac Page No. 3 of 4

P.DHANABAL, J.

Mac To

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

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nilakkottai, Dindigul District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Pattiveeranpatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

22.04.2025 Page No. 4 of 4