S.Perumal v. The Superintendent Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI S.Perumal ... Petitioner versus

1. The Superintendent of Police,

2. The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station,

3. P.Selvaraj

4. P.Jayaraman ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the 3rd and 4th respondents based on the complaint dated 09.06.2025 in the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, within the time frame fixed by this Court.

1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Harish For R1 and R2 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioner with a grievance that for having filed an application to remove the encroachment, the 3rd and 4th respondents are threatening him, has lodged a complaint before the Dindigul Taluk Police Station. However, the respondent Police has not acted on the petitioner's complaint. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2 and submits that the complaint of the petitioner was treated as petition enquiry in CSR No.777 of 2025 and the same was closed that it does not come within the purview of the respondent Police.

3. This Court considered the rival submissions made.

4. The petitioner appears to have filed a writ petition as against one Selvaraj and others that they have encroached upon a public road. 2/4

According to him, the Court has also ordered for removal of encroachment, however, the encroachment is not yet removed and on the other hand, the said Selvaraj threatened him and demanded a sum of Rs.2 lakhs to remove the fence.

5. Be that as it may, in the event, if the Court has already passed an order to remove the encroachment, the petitioner is having a remedy to file a contempt petition before the concerned court, which granted the relief to remove the encroachment.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed. No costs. 08.07.2025 ogy NCC : Yes / No.

Index : Yes / No.

Internet : Yes / No.

To

1. The Superintendent of Police, 3/4

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

ogy

2. The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station,

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

08.07.2025 4/4