John Birtto v. The Commissioner Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI John Britto ... Petitioner versus

1. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy District.

2. The Inspector of Police, K.K.Nagar Police Station, Trichy District.

3. The General Manager, Regent Defence Engineering Systems Pvt. Ltd., K.K.Nagar, Trichy District.

... 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 as against the 3rd respondent company on the basis of the petitioner's representations dated 22.07.2024 and 02.05.2025 and conclude the same within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.V.G.Vallarasu Chezhiyan For R1 and R2 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioner claims that he is running a Manpower Consultancy and he had entered into a contract with the 3rd respondent Company. The petitioner, with a grievance that the provident fund and gratuity for his employees have not been paid by the 3rd respondent Company, lodged a complaint as against the 3rd respondent Company before the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the petitioner has lodged a complaint as against the 3rd respondent Company, some of the persons from the 3rd respondent Company trespassed into the petitioner's office and damaged the computers, printers and other office usage things. Therefore, the petitioer has lodged complaints before the respondent Police on 22.07.2024 and 02.05.2025. Since the complaint of the petitioner was not enquired by the respondent Police, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2/5

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner has lodged a complaint as against the 3rd respondent on 20.11.2024. The said complaint was forwarded to the Labour Court. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, they have not received any other complaint from the petitioner.

4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the petitioner has lodged the said complaints in person, the petitioner has not enclosed any acknowledgment for the same. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to lodge a separate complaint before the respondent Police and the respondent Police shall ascertain the genuineness of the petitioner's complaint and take appropriate action in accordance with law. No costs.

04.07.2025 ogy NCC : Yes / No.

Index : Yes / No.

Internet : Yes / No.

3/5

To

1. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy District.

2. The Inspector of Police, K.K.Nagar Police Station, Trichy District.

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

4/5

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

ogy 04.07.2025 5/5