Madras High CourtWP(MD)/17204/2021dismissed

Subramanian.T v. The Director General Of Police

2021-11-10Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.11.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN T.Subramanian ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Dr.Rathakrishnan Road, Chennai.

2.The Inspector General of Police, South Zone Office, New Natham Raod, Madurai.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Thirupachethi Police Station, Thirupachethi, Sivagangai District.

5.The Sub Inspector of Police, Thirupachethi Police Station, Thirupachethi, Sivagangai District.

6.Murugan.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to take immediate action against the respondent Nos.3 and 5 as per the guidelines issues by the Hon'ble Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India in 'Lathila Kumari Vs State of Uttar Pradesh' reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 in accordance with law by considering the petitioner's representation dated 12.07.2021 within the time stipulated by this Court.

1/3

For Petitioner : Mr.L.M.Vijai Boominathan For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1 to R5.

Mr.G.Karuppasamypandian for R6

ORDER

The petitioner has given a complaint against the sixth respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that the police authorities did not take action on the said complaint as per the mandate issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari's case. Hence, another representation was given on 12.07.2021 for calling upon the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the respondents 3 and 5. Since the respondent 1 and 2 have not acted on the said representation dated 12.07.2021, this writ petition came to be filed.

2.When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 submitted that issue between the petitioner and the sixth respondent is purely civil in nature and that therefore, the complaint of the petitioner was closed. The fourth respondent is directed to send a copy of the closure report to the writ petitioner by post. 3.The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) ias Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

To: