← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/22319/2019dismissed

Muthukumar v. The Member/The Home Secretary

2019-11-22Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.11.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P (MD).No. 22319 of 2019 Muthukumar .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The Member/Home Secretary

2. The Member/The Director General of police

3. The Chairman/The District Magistrate(The District Collector) The District Level Vigilance and Monitoring committee (under Rule 17 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Office of the District Collector Madurai District

4. The Member/Superintendent of Police The District Level Vigilance and Monitoring committee (under Rule 17 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Office of the Superintendent of Police Madurai District

5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District

6. The Inspector of Police Peraiyur Circle Sedapatty Police Station, Peraiyur Madurai District .. Respondents Prayer : This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, To issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to take action against the respondent No.5 and 6 under section 4

of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 2018, on the basis of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 17.07.2019 in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.R.Anandharaj Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to take action against the respondent No.5 and 6 under section 4 of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 2018, on the basis of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 17.07.2019 in accordance with law.

02. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted a representation on 17.07.2019 before the first and second respondents. On perusal of the representation reveals that the petitioner lodged complaint as against the accused persons under Sections SC/ST Act and on receipt of the same the respondents 5 and 6 did not take any action as against the accused persons.

03. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the sixth respondent conducted detailed enquiry. Since no cognizable offence is made out as against the petitioner closed the complaint as action dropped by a closure report dated 07.09.2019 04.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case for not taking cognizance on the complaint lodged by the petitioner it cannot be ordered for disciplinary proceedings against the respondents 5 and 6 because the sixth respondent already conducted enquiry and closed as action dropped and filed closure report. Hence this petition is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar () // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Aav To

1. The Member/Home Secretary

2. The Member/The Director General of police

3. The Chairman/The District Magistrate(The District Collector) The District Level Vigilance and Monitoring committee (under Rule 17 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Office of the District Collector Madurai District

4. The Member/Superintendent of Police The District Level Vigilance and Monitoring committee (under Rule 17 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Office of the Superintendent of Police Madurai District

5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District

6. The Inspector of Police Peraiyur Circle Sedapatty Police Station, Peraiyur Madurai District W.P (MD).No. 22319 of 2019 22.11.2019 VB(04.12.2019) 3P 7C