Abdul Jabar 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 Abdul Jabar .. Petitioner Vs
1. The Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of Police Trichy District
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police District Crime Branch Trichy District
3. The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Police Station, Trichy District .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take appropriate action on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 28.09.2024 inaccordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court. 1/6
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramesh For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to take appropriate action on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 28.09.2024 inaccordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that on 27.12.2018 the petitioner's sister husband had purchased a property in S.No.324/2A2 in Panchappur Village, Trichy District . The said property was registered and one Periyasamy received a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- in case and taken the house of his wife situated in Keela Panchapur as security. Since the petitioner's brother-in-law secured job in abroad he was in need of financial help. The petitioner had purchased the brother-in-law property on 31.03.2022 through general power. The petitioner had sold the property on 02.08.2022 to one Ranjith, resident of Theeran Nagar, Trichy District and one Sageyusundar Raj, a resident of Kancheepuram District for Rs.80,00,000/- The said Ranjith and Sageyusundar Raj has 2/6
transferred Rs.9,00,000/- through bank account and promised to repay the balance amount in two or three installments,but they have not paid so. In the meanwhile one Vijayalakshmi, wife of Pandiduari had told that the said Ranjith had sold the property to her on the basis of the forged document created by the said Periyasamy. The said Periyasamy has got several criminal cases of similar nature. The petitioner has sent complaint on 29.09.2024, but no action has been taken
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit from the postal receipt affixed it is seen that the petitioner has sent complaint to the Inspector of Police, Subramaniyapuram Police Station, Trichy District, Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Chief Minister Special Cell and other officials and not to the District Crime Branch. Hence the second and third respondents have not received any complaint as claimed by the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the complaint sent to the Superintendent of Police, Trichy District has been forwarded to the District Crime Branch.
3/6
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor denied the same.
6. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to lodge a fresh complaint to the District Crime Branch Police Station, Trichy District/second respondent who shall thereafter conduct enquiry and to take appropriate action on the complaint of the petitioner as per law. The petitioner is directed to lodge a fresh complaint with supporting materials within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands closed. No costs.
05.11.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes/No aav 4/6
To
1. The Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of Police Trichy District
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police District Crime Branch Trichy District
3. The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Police Station, Trichy District
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.
5/6
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
aav 05.11.2024 6/6