Jacquiline Mary P v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL W.P(MD) No.12004 of 2025 P.Jacquiline Mary ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli

3. The Inspector of Police, Uvari Police Station, Tirunelveli.

4. Y.Selvin

5. Grus Victoria Mary

6. Vinohar ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 to 3 from interfering with the civil dispute pending in O.S.No.1,22 and 23 of 2025 on the file Judicial Magistrate cum District Munsif Court, Radhapuram by Page No. 1 of 5

considering the petitioner`s representation dated 15.04.2025. For petitioner :Mr. H.Arumugam For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) *****

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner to forbear the respondents 1 to 3 from interfering with the civil dispute pending in O.S.No.1,22 and 23 of 2025 on the file Judicial Magistrate cum District Munsif Court, Radhapuram by considering the petitioner`s representation dated 15.04.2025.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a property dispute between the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6 and the petitioner also filed Civil Suits in O.S.No.1, 22 and 23 of 2025 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram. However, the respondents 4 to 6 tried to vacate the petitioner without due process of law. Thereby, he filed the suits and the same are pending. While so, the respondents 4 to 6 by interfering with the civil dispute insisted the petitioner to vacate the premises and thereby, he sent representation dated 15.04.2025, but the same has not been considered. Page No. 2 of 5

Hence, she filed this petition.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the third respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner and thereby, they called the petitioner for enquiry. In the meantime, the petitioner also sent representation dated 15.04.2025 and the same is pending and they have not harassed the petitioner as alleged by him. However, they will conduct enquiry and dispose of the same within one week.

4. Considering the prayer sought for in this petition, this Court, without issuing notice to the respondents 4 to 6, is inclined to pass orders.

5. According to the petitioner the respondents 1 to 3 interfered with the civil dispute and the third respondent strongly denied the same and only based on the complaint lodged by the fourth respondent, they called the petitioner for enquiry and the same is still pending. In the meantime, the petitioner also sent representation dated 15.04.2025. Both are pending for enquiry.

Page No. 3 of 5

6. Therefore, recording the abovesaid submission of the Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side), this Court directs the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.04.2025 along with the complaint of the fourth respondent and dispose of the same in accordance with law within one week from the date of this order. It is needless to state that if the matter is civil in nature, the third respondent has to follow the circular issued by the superior officers in this regard.

7. With the abovesaid observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

28.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli

3. The Inspector of Police, Uvari Police Station, Tirunelveli.

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

Page No. 4 of 5

P.DHANABAL,J apd W.P.(MD) No.12004 of 2025 28.04.2025 Page No. 5 of 5