N.Venkatachalam, v. The Superintendent Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.06.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN W.P.(MD)No.4532 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD).No.3624 of 2017 N.Venkatachalam ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Musiri, Trichy District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Thuraiyur.

4. The Branch Manager, Sundaram Finance Limited, Trichy Road, Thruraiyur, Trichy District.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first to third respondents to take legal action against the fourth respondent for the illegal act and the return of Lorry TN52 C 3057 to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balamani For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor For R-4 : Mr.S.Pon Senthilkumaran

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the first to third respondents to take legal action against the fourth respondent for the illegal act and to return of Lorry TN52 C 3057 to the petitioner.

2. Heard both sides.

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner's lorry bearing registration No. TN 52 C 3057 has been illegally taken by the fourth respondent. Hence, he has filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirappalli / first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

respondent herein to take action against the fourth respondent. Since no action was taken by the respondent Police, the petitioner has filed this present Writ Petition.

4.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 on instructions submitted that the first respondent did not receive any complaint from the petitioner.

5.Therefore, this Court is of the view that if at all the petitioner is having any grievance against the fourth respondent, he would file a complaint before the concerned Police Station and he cannot straight-away file a complaint before the Superintendent of Police to investigate the complaint. That apart, now the first respondent also submitted that no complaint has been filed before him.

6.In the above circumstances, I find no merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition stands dismissed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Tsg To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Musiri, Trichy District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Thuraiyur.

+ 1 CC to Mr.S.Muthukrishnan, Advocate in SR.No.70874 + 1 CC to Mr.S.Pon Senthil Kumaran, Advocate in SR.No.70910 Order made in W.P.(MD)No.4532 of 2017 Dated: 24.06.2019 KS(11.07.2019) 2 P 6 C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/