← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/12232/2025closed

Praveena v. The Superintendent Of Police

2025-04-28Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.04.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Praveena ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Vikramangalam Police Station, Madurai District.

3. Seeralan

4. Pandiyammal

5. Mayajothi

6. Devasena

7. Amirtharaj

8. Rajadurai ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent no.1 and 2 herein to conduct enquiry and take appropriate action against the respondent no.3 to 8 on the basis the petitioner 1/5

complaint dated 10.04.2024 within a stipulated time period in accordance with law.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Vishnuram For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi (R1,R2) Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondent no.1 and 2 to conduct enquiry and take appropriate action against the respondent no.3 to 8 on the basis the petitioner complaint dated 10.04.2024.

2.According to the petitioner, she lodged a complaint against the respondents 3 to 8 for their criminal activities before the 2nd respondent on 10.04.2024, but the same has not been considered. Hence this petition.

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that they have received the complaint of the petitioner and the same was closed after conducting enquiry on 14.04.2024. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication.

2/5

4.Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for in this petition, this Court, without even issuing notice to the private respondents, is inclined to pass orders.

5.According to the petitioner, he lodged a complaint against the respondent police and the 2nd respondent police also admitted the receipt of complaint of the petitioner and the same was closed after enquiry. Today, the copy of closure report is also served to the petitioner. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to challenge the closure report, in the manner known to law, if she is aggrieved.

6.Accordingly, this petition is closed by preserving the liberty of the petitioner to challenge the closure report in the manner known to law.

28.04.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No PNM 3/5

To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Vikramangalam Police Station, Madurai District.

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

4/5

P.DHANABAL , J.

PNM ORDER IN 28.04.2025 5/5