Harine v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Harine ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajapalayam Sub-Division, Virudhunagar District.
3. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.
4. Selvam
5. Shanmugaraj
6. Samuthiram
7. Karthick
8. Ashokkumar ... Respondents Page No. 1 of 4
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent take appropriate action against in the petitioner based on his representation dated 04.12.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rajaboopathy For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side)
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the 3rd respondent take appropriate action against the petitioner based on his representation dated 04.12.2024.
2. According to the petitioner, she lodged a complaint against the respondents no.4 to 8, but no action was taken. Therefore, she has filed this petition.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents no.1 to 3 would submit that the representation of petitioner was already considered and they assigned C.S.R.No.732 of 2024 and the same was closed on 07.02.2025 after an elaborate enquiry. Therefor, nothing survives for further adjudication in Page No. 2 of 4
this case.
4. Considering the prayer sought for in the petition, this Court without even issuing notice to the private respondents no.4 to 8 inclined to pass orders in this petition.
5. According to the petitioner, she sent a representation dated 04.12.2024 before the 3rd respondent as against the respondents no.4 to 8, but the same was not considered. According to the 3rd respondent, the representation of the petitioner was already considered and the same was closed after enquiry, therefore it is for the petitioner to challenge the closure of the complaint in the manner known to law, if she is aggrieved. Today the copy of the closure report is also served to the petitioner's counsel. In view of the same, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the closure of the complaint in the manner known to law, if she is aggrieved and this writ petition is closed.
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, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajapalayam Sub-Division, Virudhunagar District.
3. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
22.04.2025 Page No. 4 of 4