T.Vijayalakshmi v. The Commissioner Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.11.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR T.Vijayalakshmi : Petitioner Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Azhagarkovil Road, Madurai City, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, SS Colony Police Station, Madurai City.
: Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking for Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to initiate necessary action on the petitioner's complaint dated 03.10.2024 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
The petitioner, wife of one Tirupathi, has sent a representation to the respondent police stating that she has been harassed due to frequent calling of police in search of her husband. Further, she had also specified that action should be taken against the officials, who are coming in search of her husband. She had sent representation on 03.10.2024, however, no action has been taken. Hence, this petition.
2. The petitioner admits that her husband had into land brokerage business. In course of his business, he had come into contact with one Saravakumar at Nehru Nagar, Madurai and he used to take regular loan from him. He was unable to repay the loan. Now, the said Saravanakumar claims that the petitioner's husband has to pay Rs.2,50,000/-. According to the petitioner, her husband had repaid Rs.1,90,000/-. Suppressing the same, false complaint has been given by Saravanakumar. Earlier, due to the threat of Saravanakumar, her husband had left home four months ago and he whereabouts is not known. While that being so, one Muneeswari, Sub Inspector of Police, SS Colony Police Station, is visiting the house of the petitioner in search of petitioner's husband, threatened the petitioner and caused harassment.
2/5
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner's husband Tirupathi is a land broker. He had taken amount of Rs.3,40,000/- from Saravanakumar on the pretext that he would get DTCP approval. Thereafter, neither he got approval nor repaid the amount. Further, it was found that the petitioner's husband involved in similar activities cheating several persons. Hence, complaint lodged. On receipt of complaint, CSR.No.780 of 2024 assigned and a women, Sub-Inspector, had gone to serve notice to the petitioner's husband for enquiry. It is the routine procedure followed. Which is now termed as harassment and false complaint has been made against the women, SI. It is the only for the purpose of creating a defence and to deter the police from enquiry CSR.No.
780 of 2024, such false allegations made. The information with the police is that the petitioner's husband is very much available and visiting the house in a secretive manner. The petitioner is also aware about her husband' activities and she is not co-operating for enquiry. Further, submitted that now the investigation has been taken over by the Inspector of Police.
3/5
4. Considering the submission, this Court finds that the petitioner's complaint lack merits of any consideration. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. The second respondent police to continue with the enquiry in CSR.No.780 of 2024 and take it to its logical conclusion. No costs. 12.11.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Rmk To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Azhagarkovil Road, Madurai City, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, SS Colony Police Station, Madurai City.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4/5
M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.
Rmk 12.11.2024 5/5