Elamathi v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.04.2025 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Elamathi ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Kottaipattinam, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
3. The Inspector of Police, Kottaipattinam, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
4. Mathavan
5. Renganayagi
6. Kalidoss
7. Mathavi
8. Chithra ... Respondents 1/5
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1 to 3 respondents to consider petitioners representation dated 11.03.2025 and to conduct an enquiry, take necessary action against the Private Respondents.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Shanmugasundaram For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi (R1-R3) Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the 1 to 3 respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 11.03.2025 and to conduct an enquiry, take necessary action against the Private Respondents.
2.According to the petitioner, he is the owner of property in SF No.155/9 for an extent of 0.01.0 Ares and S.No.155/0 for an extent of 0.04.5 Ares at Manjakudi village, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukottai District. While so, the private respondents caused obstruction to the petitioner, when he tried to put up fence and also assaulted him. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation, but the same has not been considered. Hence this petition.
2/5
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that they have received the representation of the petitioner, assigned CSR No.60 of 2025 and the same was closed after conducting enquiry, since it is a civil dispute. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication. 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 private respondents and the same has not been considered. The 3rd respondent police also admitted the receipt of representation of the petitioner and the same was closed after enquiry in CSR No.60/2025. 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.
3/5
6.In view of the above, this petition is closed by preserving the liberty of the petitioner to challenge the closure report in the manner known to law, if he is aggrieved.
28.04.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No PNM To
1. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Kottaipattinam, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
3. The Inspector of Police, Kottaipattinam, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4/5
P.DHANABAL , J.
PNM ORDER IN 28.04.2025 5/5