Madras High CourtWP(MD)/16544/2017closed

Jannet, W/O.Johnson v. The Superintendent Of Police

2019-07-02Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE: 02.07.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN W.P.(MD).No.16544 of 2017 Jannet ... Petitioner -Vs1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, at Nagercoil.

2.The Inspector of Police, Nithiravaillai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

3.Sibi 4.Arul 5.Pirasofi ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to proceed as per law upon the direction issued by this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.23418 of 2015, dated 12.04.2017 and may restore the issue on the strength of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 20.05.2017 and 21.08.2017. For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar For R1 and R2 : Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

The Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondent police to proceed further as per the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.23418 of 2015, dated 12.04.2017.

2. Heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the official respondents.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier the petitioner approached this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.23418 of 2015 seeking direction to the second respondent to give police protection to the petitioner. This Court by order, dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12.04.2017, closed the petition on the ground that based on the complaint given by the petitioner a crime case has been registered in Crime No.325 of 2015 by the respondent police. Further, this Court has also directed that if there is any threat perception to the petitioner or her family members, it is always open to the petitioner to give a fresh complaint. According to the petitioner, since even after registration of the complaint the third parties are causing interference to the possession of the property in question, she made a representation to the second respondent seeking police protection. Since the same was not considered, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

4. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the official respondents, on instructions, submitted that the representation of the petitioner has been considered and closed directing the parties to approach the civil Court, since it is a civil dispute.

5. In view of the above submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the representation of the petitioner has been considered and closed, no further adjudication is required in this petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AD-II) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, at Nagercoil.

2.The Inspector of Police, Nithiravaillai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

+1 CC to M/s.K.P.NARAYANA KUMAR, Advocate SR-72992. W.P.(MD).No.16544 of 2017 02.07.2019 CS(22.07.2019) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/