Punniyavathi v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Its

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.06.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Punniyavathi ... Petitioner versus

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Collectorate Campus, Virudhunagar,

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruchulli,

3. The Inspector of Police, Narikudi Circle, A.Mukkulam Police Station,

4. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, A.Mukkulam Police Station, ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, 1/6

seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to conduct an enquiry and to take action in accordance with law based on the petitioner's complaint dated 25.03.2025 in person and on the basis of the representation submitted to all the respondents on 02.05.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugan For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioner, with a grievance that her complaint has not been enquired by the respondent Police, has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent Police to register her complaint dated 25.03.2025.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been abused by degrading her community and therefore, she lodged a complaint dated 25.03.2025 before the Sub Inspector of Police, A.Mukkulam Police Station. But, there was no action on the said complaint. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District. Even thereafter, there was 2/6

no action on the petitioner's complaint. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the complaint given by the petitioner before the A.Mukkulam Police Station was treated as petition enquiry in CSR No.120 of 2025. In the meantime, the complaint given by the petitioner before the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar, was also forwarded for an enquiry and the same was treated as current paper enquiry. Therefore, both the complaints were enquired together and the same were closed as Civil in nature.

4. With regard to the issuance of direction for registration of complaint, a Division Bench of this Court, in G.Prabakaran vs. Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District and another, reported in 2018 (4) MLJ (Crl.) 513, held that the High Court is not bound to direct the police to register the complaint in all cases and it is further held that normal course of remedy on a failure or refusal to record the information is Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after due compliance of Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. and that no petition shall be entertained without exhausting the remedy under Section 3/6

154(3) Cr.P.C.

5. In view of the above Judgment, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. However, considering the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the complaints of the petitioner were closed as civil in nature, this writ petition is closed with a direction to the respondent Police to furnish a copy of the closure report to the petitioner, enabling her to workout her remedy in the manner known to law. No costs.

27.06.2025 ogy NCC : Yes / No.

Index : Yes / No.

Internet : Yes / No.

To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Collectorate Campus, Virudhunagar, 4/6

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruchulli,

3. The Inspector of Police, Narikudi Circle, A.Mukkulam Police Station,

4. The Sub Inspector of Police, A.Mukkulam Police Station,

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

5/6

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

ogy 27.06.2025 6/6