Henry Homes Poobalaryar v. Commissioner Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.04.2024 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Henry Homes Poobalaryar, ... Petitioner (represented by power agent Nixon) Vs
1. The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli District, High Grounds Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli - 627 007.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli District, High Grounds Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli - 627 007.
3. The Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabing Cell, Pallam Police Station, 2nd Floor, Tirunelveli Junction, Tirunelveli - 627 001.
4. Ananth Jacob, 1/6
5. The Inspector of Police, Melapalayam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
... Respondents (R5 is Suo Motu Impleaded Vide Court Order Dated 22.06.2023 in Wp(MD). 14854/2023).
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 3 to take action against respondent 4 based on the complaint preferred by the petitioner dated 24.05.2023. For Petitioner : Mr.Lourdu Paul Maurya For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to take action against the fourth respondent. 2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the first respondent that the fourth respondent has created a forged document and on the strength of that 2/6
document, he sold the property to the petitioner in the year 1997. During that period, the petitioner was working at Kathar. On believing the power of attorney produced by the fourth respondent, the petitioner has purchased the property. Later, the petitioner has found that the property belongs to somebody else and they had constructed a building. Therefore, he has filed a suit before the Court concerned and then he came to know that the document, based on which, the petitioner has purchased the property is a forged one. Therefore, the petitioner has lodged the complaint. However, the respondent police has not acted upon the same.
3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that the complaint of the petitioner was duly enquired and the same was closed. 4.Considering the rival submissions made, this Court is of the view that in the event, if any petitioner's complaint has already been closed, the respondent police has to furnish a copy of the closure report to the petitioner.
5.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of with 3/6
liberty to the petitioner to file a private complaint before the concerned Judicial Magistrate and establish his case in the manner known to law. No costs.
23.04.2024 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No LR To
1. The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli District, High Grounds Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli - 627 007.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli District, High Grounds Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli - 627 007.
3. The Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabing Cell, Pallam Police Station, 2nd Floor, Tirunelveli Junction, Tirunelveli - 627 001.
4/6
4. The Inspector of Police, Melapalayam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
B.PUGALENDHI , J.
LR 23.04.2024 6/6