← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/22760/2015dismissed

P. Suresh Kumar, Advocate, v. The Inspector General Of

2019-10-18Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan2 pages

W.P.(MD)No.22760 of 2015 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.10.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.22760 of 2015 P.Suresh Kumar, Advocate.

... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Natham Road, Madurai.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

3. The Commissioner, Human Rights Commission, No.143, PS, Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Green Ways Road, Chennai - 28.

4. The Inspector of Police, (Prabhakaran) Valliyoor police station, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondent 1 to 3 to take suitable action against the fourth respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 05.12.2015.

For Petitioner : No appearance.

For R-1 to R-4 : Mr.A.Robinson, Government Advocate(Crl.Side).

O R D E R

None appears for the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a practising lawyer and that on 14.12.2015, there was an altercation between him and the fourth respondent herein. The petitioner would allege that the fourth respondent abused the writ petitioner and his junior counsel in filthy language and also damaged the side mirror of his car. The petitioner had given a representation dated 05.12.2015 in this regard. The petitioner wants action to be taken on his representation.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

W.P.(MD)No.22760 of 2015

3. The allegations of the petitioner have been denied by a detailed counter. The fourth respondent has alleged that the petitioner along with three others were standing in the service road and their car bearing registration No.TN 45-J-0555 was parked. According to the fourth respondent, they were consuming liquor. The fourth respondent was then on patrol duty. The fourth respondent admits that he enquired the petitioner and upon knowing that he is a practising lawyer, asked him to leave the place immediately and behave properly.

4. It is not as if the petitioner suffered any injury as such. Even according to him, there was only a wordy altercation and damage to the side mirror of the car. I am therefore of the view that no further directions are necessary in this case.

5. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Writs) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To:

1. The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Natham Road, Madurai.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

3. The Commissioner, Human Rights Commission, No.143, PS, Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Green Ways Road, Chennai - 28.

4. The Inspector of Police, (Prabhakaran) Valliyoor police station, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

5. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

W.P.(MD)No.22760 of 2015 18.10.2019 pmu SDS (17.12.2019) 2P 6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2