P.M.Abdul Majid v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.04.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL P.M.Abdul Majid ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palani, Dindigul District.

3. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Keeranur Police Station, Palani, Dindigul District.

4. Selvaraj

5. Hamsath ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to take appropriate action against the 4th and 5th respondent based on the petitioner's representation dated 25.03.2025 within a time frame stipulated by this Court.

Page No. 1 of 4

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Selvakrishnan For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

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 against the respondents no.4 and 5 based on the petitioner's representation dated 25.03.2025.

2. According to the petitioner, he lodged a complaint against the respondents no.4 and 5 before the 3rd respondent on 25.03.2025, but no action was taken. Therefore, he has filed this petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents no.1 to 3 would submit that the petitioner sent representation through postal in respect of tenancy dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent no.4 and thereafter, the petitioner has not appeared for enquiry and the same is pending. However, they will conduct enquiry and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

4. Considering the prayer sought for in the petition, this Court Page No. 2 of 4

without even issuing notice to the 4th respondent inclined to pass orders in this petition.

5. According to the petitioner, he sent a representation to the 3rd respondent for taking action against the respondents no.4 and 5 dated 25.03.2025, but no action was taken. The 3rd respondent has also admitted the receipt of the complaint from the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner has not appeared for enquiry. Therefore, it is appropriate to direct the petitioner to appear before the 3rd respondent along with relevant documents within fifteen [15] days and thereafter, the 3rd respondent shall conduct enquiry and take appropriate action in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to both the parties.

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

24.04.2025 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, Dindigul District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palani, Dindigul District.

3. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Keeranur Police Station, Palani, Dindigul District.

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

W.P (MD) No.11321 of 2025 24.04.2025 Page No. 4 of 4