Madras High CourtWP(MD)/19150/2020disposed of

Rajendran v. The Superintendent Of Police

2021-01-07Honourable Mrs Justice R. Hemalatha3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.01.2021 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA Rajendran ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Theni District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, District Superintendent of Police Campus, Theni.

... Respondents PRAYER:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.06.2020 and to take appropriate action.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan For Respondents : Mr.R.Saravana Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2.The main contention of the petitioner is that one Sarammal wife of Rajan, executed a power of attorney in respect of a property at First Street, Power House, Theni, comprised in Survey No.526/B measuring 9 cents, for a valuable consideration and one Navaneethakrishnan, who acted as a Mediator for purchase of the property, got the original power of attorney along with some signed blank cheques from the petitioner. However, the power of attorney was subsequently cancelled. Though a complaint dated 29.06.2020 was submitted by the petitioner to the second respondent in this regard, the second respondent did not take any action and hence, the present writ petition.

1/3

3.Mr.R.Saravana Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), who takes notice for the respondents, would submit that the complaint, dated 29.06.2020, given by the petitioner was registered as Current Paper No.G2/19250/1267/2020, dated 04.07.2020 and summons were issued to both the parties on 10.11.2020 to appear before the respondent police on 17.11.2020. According to him, on 17.11.2020, when both the parties appeared before the respondent police, the petitioner was directed to produce necessary documents and that in spite of repeated adjournments, the petitioner did not produce necessary documents.

4.At this juncture, Mr.C.Jeganathan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is ready to produce necessary documents before the concerned police. 5.Since the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to direct the second respondent to consider his representation, dated 29.06.2020, this Court, without going into the merits of the case as projected by the petitioner either in his representation or in the affidavit, directs the second respondent to consider the complaint given by the petitioner, dated 29.06.2020 and pass necessary orders in accordance with law and on merits, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6.With the above observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Rm 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.

2/3

1. The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Theni District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, District Superintendent of Police Campus, Theni.

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

07.01.2021 KG(CO) CS(22.01.2021) 3P 4C 3/3