M.Jesuphilip v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL M.Jesuphilip ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Subramaniyapuram, Trichy District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, District Police Office, Trichy District.
3. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (DCB), SP Office Campus, Trichy District.
4. Periyasamy ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent herein to take appropriate action and conduct proper enquiry as against the 4th respondent, in the light of petitioners representations/Complaint dated 13.12.2024, in accordance with law as per the direction laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Page No. 1 of 4
Pradesh, within a stipulated period as may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr. R.Sakthivel 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 3rd respondent to take appropriate action and conduct proper enquiry on the petitioner's complaint dated 13.12.2024
2. According to the petitioner, he lodged a complaint as against the 4th respondent in respect of forging pattas and execution of deed before the 3rd respondent on 13.12.2024, 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 representation of the petitioner was already considered and enquiry was conducted and the petitioner himself executed a handwritten letter that he will approach the revenue authorities in the manner know to law. Therefore, based on the same, the complaint was closed.
Page No. 2 of 4
4. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not written any letter and no enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner.
5. 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.
6. Since the representation of the petitioner was already considered and the same was closed, nothing survives for further adjudication in this case. Today the copy of closure report is served to the petitioner's counsel. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to challenge the same in the manner to law, if he is aggrieved over the closure of the complaint. In view of the same, preserving the liberty of the petitioner to challenge the closure of the complaint in the manner known to law, this writ petition is closed.
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, District Police Office, Subramaniyapuram, Trichy District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, District Police Office, Trichy District.
3. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (DCB), SP Office Campus, Trichy District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
24.04.2025 Page No. 4 of 4