Gokulan v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.08.2022 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM Gokulan

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o the Superintendent of Police, Madurai, Madurai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (DCB), Madurai, Madurai District.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate appropriate legal actions based on the petitioner's representation, dated 09.07.2022 within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunanidhi For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthikumar Government Advocate (Crl.side) 1/5

O R D E R

The writ petitioner filed this Writ Petition, seeking a direction to direct the first and second respondents to initiate appropriate legal action, based on the petitioner's representation, dated 09.07.2022. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's grand father Paulsamy had registered a mortgage deed in respect of land situated in S.Nos.1/5A, 1/5C, 1/6A, 1/6B, 1/6D and 1/8 with an extent of 89 cents to the petitioner's mother, namely, Deivanai Ammal, vide registered mortgage deed Document No.1170/1976, dated 27.09.1976. In the year 1986, the petitioner's father, namely, Murugan and his brother, namely, Rajendran jointly sold the land with an extent of 60 cents to one Thangasamy vide registered Document No.1110/1986 in S.No.1/5A, 1/6D, 1/7, 1/8.

In these circumstances, without having any right or title over the property in respect of S.No.1/6A, the said Thangasamy and his son Navaneetha Krishnan conspired together with one Kumaravel and created forged document for the land to the extent of 13.5 cents in S.No.1/6A, vide Document No.1651/2001. Hence, the petitioner gave a complaint to the respondent police, but, so far, no action has been taken. Therefore, the petitioner filed this petition.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner sent a complaint to the first respondent police through post and the first respondent forwarded the same to the second respondent. If the petitioner appears with sufficient documents, the second respondent will conduct an enquiry and investigate the case.

4.Recording the said submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), the petitioner is directed to appear before the second respondent for enquiry and produce necessary documents to support his allegation and the second respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry and complete the same, within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

23.08.2022 Index :Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vsd 3/5

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o the Superintendent of Police, Madurai, Madurai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (DCB), Madurai, Madurai District.

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

4/5

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

vsd 23.08.2022 5/5