A. Karuppasamy v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.11.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR A.Karuppasamy .. Petitioner Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police Madurai District, Madurai.

2. The Sub Inspector of Police Thirumangalam Town Police Station Madurai District

3. Athiyarajan

4. Periyaveeran

5. Pachaikiliraja .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent and in turn the first respondent direct the second respondent police to take appropriate legal action based on the petitioner's complaint dated 11.11.2024 and CSR No.1075 of 2024 for the petitioner's representation submitted to the first respondent on 13.11.2024.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.K. Jeganathan For Respondents : Mr. A. Thiruvadi Kumar No.1 &2 Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the first respondent and in turn the first respondent to direct the second respondent police to take appropriate legal action based on the petitioner's complaint dated 11.11.2024 and CSR No.1075 of 2024 for the petitioner's representation submitted to the first respondent on 13.11.2024.

2. The petitioner claiming to be a member of Devendrakula Vellalar Welfare Association with the registration No. 114/2016 lodged a complaint to the first respondent but the police though assigned no action has been taken, hence the present petition has been filed.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on the petitioner's complaint CSR No.1075 of 2024 assigned. The petitioner had made allegations against oneAthirajan, Periyaveeran and Pitchaikili raja. All were summoned and on 17.11.2024. The counter petitioner had 2/5

submitted that the petitioner was not a member of the association and the complaint has been given with false details with wreck vengeance. The petitioner had appeared and reiterated his complaint. Finding that the petitioner is not a member of the association cannot question the functioning of association, hence the complaint was closed.

4. Today a copy of the closure report was also served on the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

5. In view of the same, nothing survives for further adjudication in the petitioner and Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 20.11.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes/No aav 3/5

To

1. The Superintendent of Police Madurai District, Madurai.

2. The Sub Inspector of Police Thirumangalam Town Police Station Madurai District

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

4/5

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

aav 20.11.2024 5/5