R.Sangeetha Devi v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.11.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR R.Sangeetha Devi .. Petitioner Vs

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

2. The Inspector of Police Chinamanur Police Station Theni District .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to initiate necessary action on the petitioner's complaint dated 10.10.2024 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Malaikani For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor 1/5

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to initiate necessary action on the petitioner's complaint dated 10.10.2024 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court. 2.The petitioner as complainant has sent complaint to the respondents on 10.10.2024, but no action has been action, hence the present petition has been filed.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that he is working in Venniyar Estate and her husband's aunt Lillipushpam also working there. during the corona period her husband stayed at Coimbatore. At that time the petitioner had taken some loan from Lillipushpam and thereafter the loan amount has been repaid. But the said Lillipushpam has demanded exorbitant interest and demanded more money. Further also threatened the petitioner. The said Lillipushpam along with her advocate had given a false complaint against the petitioner before Highways Police Station complaining that during the month of June the petitioner had purchased some jewels from Vamana jewellery, Chinnamanur by using the ATM 2/5

card of Lillipushpam and the Chinnamanur police called her for enquiry and thereafter she had lodged complaint, but the police are not acting on the complaint. Hence the above complaint.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that on the petitioner's complaint, summons were issued to the petitioner for her appearance on 16.10.2024. She failed to respond to the notice. Thereafter second notice was issued on 01.11.2024, on which date the petitioner had appeared along with pawnbroker and sought some more time to give further explanation. The enquiry is on progress and further appropriate action would be taken on the petitioner's complaint.

5. The contention of the petitioner is that the enquiry to be completed within the stipulated period.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the enquiry would be completed within two weeks. 3/5

7. Recording the same, the Writ Petition stands closed. No costs. 05.11.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes/No aav To

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

2. The Inspector of Police Chinamanur Police Station Theni District

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

4/5

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

aav 05.11.2024 5/5