Sangilimuthu, v. The Inspector General Of
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Sangilimuthu S/o.Veerapathiran : Petitioner Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Police, 2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, 3.The Superintendent of Police, Karur.
4.The District Collector, Karur.
5.The Inspector of Police, Thogamalai Police Station, Karur District.
6.Sugumaran, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kulithalai, Karur District.
7.Mohammed Ithiris, Inspector of Police, Thogamalai Police Station, Karur District.
: Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take appropriate disciplinary action against the respondents 6 and 7 based on the representation of the petitioner dated 12.03.2019.
For Petitioner : No appearance For R1 to R5 : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor For R6 and R7 : Mr.R.Gandhi 1/3
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 4/higher police officials to take appropriate disciplinary action against the respondents 6 and 7 and to take action for quashing the case against him in Crime No.243 of 2017.
2. According to the petitioner, he is a law abiding citizen and he was doing Cable TV business and he hails from a reputed family. The fifth respondent repeatedly foisting a false case against him and he had taken him to illegal custody and caused physical and mental torture.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent 1 to 5 submitted that the petitioner is the History Sheeter and he involved in various criminal cases and to prevent the police to take action again him, he filed this writ petition with false averments. Counter affidavit filed by the sixth respondent detailing out the conduct of the petitioner herein.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 6 and 7 would submit that the writ petition is ill conceived, a third party cannot direct the initiation of departmental and disciplinary proceedings and in support her submission, he would rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2000 SC 3469 in the case of Rajinit Prasad Vs. Union of India and others.
5. This Court, on perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and counter affidavit filed by the sixth respondent, is of the view that the prayer sought for in the writ petition is ill-conceived, which come before this Court for making allegation against the police man, who have taken action against him and it is indirect threat to deter the Investigating Agency from acting in accordance with law. Therefore, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) tta To 1.The Inspector General of Police, 2/3
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, 3.The Superintendent of Police, Karur.
4.The District Collector, Karur.
5.The Inspector of Police, Thogamalai Police Station, Karur District.
6.Sugumaran, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kulithalai, Karur District.
7.Mohammed Ithiris, Inspector of Police, Thogamalai Police Station, Karur District.
+1 CC to M/s.R.GANDHI, Advocate ( SR-1094[F] dated 10/01/2022 ) 07.01.2022 MGJ(01.02.2022) 3P 9C 3/3