Madras High CourtWP(MD)/17013/2021disposed of

Manimala.A v. The Superintendent Of Police

2021-11-01Honourable Mr Justice G.Ilangovan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.11.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN W.P.(MD) No.17013 of 2021 A.Manimala ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi City.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South Police Station, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

4.Dinakaran ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to give suitable instruction and direction to the second and third respondents on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 16.04.2021 for taking appropriate legal action in accordance with law as against the fourth respondent for issuing fake and false certificate after receiving Rs.2,80,000/- from petitioner with regard to employment in a reputed company to the petitioner's daughter forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Palani Velayutham For R1 - R3 : Mr. K.Sanjay Gandhi Government Advocate(Crl.side)

O R D E R

This petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to give suitable instruction and direction to the second and third respondents to register the case on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner on 16.04.2021.

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 21.09.2021, the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) submitted that based upon 1/3

the complaint given by the petitioner enquiry was undertaken and during the course of enquiry, it was found that it is a money dispute between the parties and the respondent has given an undertaking that he will repay the amount, which was received from the petitioner and undertaking was accepted by the petitioner and based upon that it was closed on 22.06.2021.

3. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that against the undertaking that has been given by the third respondent, he did not return the amount and therefore, he sent a representation dated 16.04.2021. It appears that only on the basis of the complaint dated 16.04.2021, enquiry has been undertaken in CSR No.114 of 2021 on 20.04.2021. It was closed on 22.04.2021. So the submission that because of non compliance of the undertaking by the third respondent, subsequent complaint has been given by the petitioner is not correct. The petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh complaint or approach the appropriate forum for appropriate remedy.

4. With the above said liberty, this petition is disposed of as infructuous.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) CM To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi City.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South Police Station, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

2/3

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

W.P.(MD) No.17013 of 2021 01.11.2021 TSK(CO) SB(29.11.2021) 3P 5C 3/3