Saravanan v. The Director General Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.12.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN W.P.(MD).No.19283 of 2020 Saravanan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Beach Road, Chennai.
2.The Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Office of the Deputy Inspector General Police, Trichy.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karur Town, Karur District.
5.Prithvi Raj, The Sub-Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station, Karur.
Now The Inspector of Police, Periyanayakampalayam Police Station, Coimbatore District.
...Respondents
1/5
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Respondent No.1 to take action against the Respondent No.5 on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 12.08.2020, within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor.
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus directing the first respondent to take action against the fifth respondent, who was the Sub-Inspector of Police.
2. The allegation in the Writ Petition is that the petitioner was married to one Maragathavalli on 04.12.2003. Differences arose between the couple and the petitioner's wife left the matrimonial home. While so, the petitioner's wife lodged a complaint before the fifth respondent, who is the Sub Inspector of Police in Karur Town Police Station. The fifth respondent has got personal acquaintance with the petitioner's wife and was showing undue interest in the complaint besides providing financial assistance to his wife. The fifth respondent is unnecessarily interfering in the family affairs of the petitioner and 2/5
his wife. Therefore, the petitioner gave a representation to the respondents 1 to 4 to take action against the fifth respondent.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents had taken action and found that the allegations made by the petitioner are not true and that there are matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and his wife before the Family Court, Coimbatore.
4. The reading of the allegations in the Writ Petition would show that the only grievance of the petitioner is that the fifth respondent has been acting in a biased manner and interfering in a family dispute between the petitioner and his wife and showing favour to his wife. The allegations in the Writ Petition would show that the allegations are vague. That apart, there is nothing in the Writ Petition to suggest as to what is the specific violation in law committed by the fifth respondent. The allegations appear to be borne out of the grudge against the petitioner's wife. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any action of the fifth respondent, which is in violation of law, it is open to him to send a representation with specific details.
3/5
5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the Writ Petition and it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
12.12.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Lm To 1.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Beach Road, Chennai.
2.The Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Office of the Deputy Inspector General Police, Trichy.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karur Town, Karur District.
5. The Inspector of Police, Periyanayakampalayam Police Station, Coimbatore District.
6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4/5
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Lm W.P.(MD).No.19283 of 2020 12.12.2022 5/5