S. Arul Stephen Vignesh v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR S.Arul Stephen Vignesh .. Petitioner Vs
1. The Superintendent of Police Sivagangai Sivagangai District
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Karaikudi, Sivagangai District
3. The Inspector of Police Alagappapuram Police Station Sivagangai District
4. The Branch Manager Kinara Capitals No.79/3 Ponmuthu Building Pudukottai Road, Nadimuthu Nagar Gangadharapuram Aranthangi Taluk Pudukottai District .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the fourth Respondent and their henchmen, on 1/6
the basis of petitioner's complaint dated 14.11.2024 in the light of dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh within the stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court For Petitioner : Mr.G. Hariharan For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar No.1 to 3 Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the fourth Respondent and their henchmen, on the basis of petitioner's complaint dated 14.11.2024 in the light of dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh within the stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has sent representation on 14.11.2024, but no action has been taken by the respondent police. The further contention of the petitioner is that the 2/6
petitioner is doing steel business in the name and style of ARS Enterprises. At that time he had taken loan from the fourth respondent for a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs. According to the petitioner he had paid substantial amount of loan and interest around Rs.15,54,000/- which has not been properly accounted. On the other hand on 13.11.2024 the fourth respondent along with his henchmen had directed the petitioner to pay the balance amount within one week otherwise he would be thrown out from the property. The respondent police despite the receipt of complaint has not taken any steps.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on the complaint of the petitioner, petitioner and the fourth respondent were summoned for enquiry.. The petitioner had not appeared before the respondent police and not produce any documents. The fourth respondent was summoned on 26.11.2024 he had also failed to appear. The respondent police would again take steps to issue summons to the petitioner and the fourth respondent.
3/6
4. The petitioner to appear before the respondent police on 06.12.2024 and the respondent police shall serve summons on the fourth respondent and ensure his presence on 04.12.2024.
5. On appearance of both the petitioner and the fourth respondent the respondent police to conduct enquiry and close the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6.. With the above direction the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
27.11.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes/No aav 4/6
To
1. The Superintendent of Police Sivagangai Sivagangai District
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Karaikudi, Sivagangai District
3. The Inspector of Police Alagappapuram Police Station Sivagangai District
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.
5/6
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
aav 27.11.2024 6/6