Veerammal 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.12190 of 2025 P.Veerammal ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

2. The Inspector of Police, Puzhuthipatti Police Station, Singampunari Taluk, Sivagangai District.

3. P.Marunthan

4. P.Ponnar

5. M.Kaththamuthu

6. M.Thangaraj ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India Page No. 1 of 5

to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representations dated 29.04.2024 and 10.06.2024 and take appropriate action as against the respondents 3 and 6 within a stipulated time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

For petitioner :Mr. A.Mu.Sharavanan For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) *****

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representations dated 29.04.2024 and 10.06.2024 and take appropriate action as against the respondents 3 and 6 within a stipulated time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner lodged a complaint against the respondents 3 to 6 before the second respondent, but no action was taken. Hence, she filed this petition.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) for the Page No. 2 of 5

respondents 1 to 2 would submit that the petitioner lodged a complaint and the same was closed after enquiry on 25.05.2024 and thereafter, again she sent a representation dated 10.06.2024 and the same was also closed after enquiry in C.S.R.No.136 of 2024 dated 11.06.2024. Therefore, already the complaints were closed after enquiry and hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Consider the prayer sought for in this petition, this Court, without issuing notice to the respondents 3 to 6, is inclined to pass orders in this case.

5. According to the petitioner, she lodged a complaint before the respondents 1 and 2 against the respondents 3 to 6, but no action was taken. The second respondent also admitted the receipt of the representations of the petitioner and the same were already enquired and closed. Today, the closure report is furnished to the petitioner's counsel. Hence, it is for the petitioner to challenge the closure of the complaint, if she is aggrieved.

6. In view of the same, preserving the liberty to the petitioner to Page No. 3 of 5

challenge the closure report in the manner known to law, this Writ Petition is closed. No costs.

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

1. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

2. The Inspector of Police, Puzhuthipatti Police Station, Singampunari Taluk, Sivagangai District.

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

Page No. 4 of 5

P.DHANABAL,J apd W.P.(MD) No.12190 of 2025 28.04.2025 Page No. 5 of 5