Calebpandiyan.C v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.12.2024

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH and W.M.P(MD)No.25809 of 2023 C.Calebpandiyan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.

2.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.

3.The District Superintendent of Police, Office of the District Superintendent of Police, Korampallam, Tuticorin District.

4.Stephen ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.A2/10/2023, dated 17.11.2023 on the file of the second respondent herein and to quash the same.

1/4

For Petitioner : Ms.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.A.Albert James, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For R-4 : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 17.11.2023.

2.Heard Ms.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.A.Albert James, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. 3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent and his wife are attempting to knock off the entire trust properties and also the money that was collected from the members of the church. A complaint was given in this regard. In the meantime, the fourth respondent tried to fence the property and fixed a CCTV camera. Yet another complaint was given in this regard to the third respondent and the matter was referred to the second respondent to conduct the 2/4

proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. The second respondent closed the proceedings by order, dated 17.11.2023. However, while doing so, certain observations were made in the order and the petitioner is aggrieved by those observations made by the second respondent. 4.The impugned order passed by the second respondent has not resulted in issuance of any positive directions and the second respondent has infact closed the proceedings. In view of the same, it is made clear that the observations that were made in the order passed by the second respondent through proceedings, dated 17.11.2023, will not come in the way of the respective parties to workout their remedy in the manner known to law before the appropriate forum. This clarity will sufficiently take care of the grievance expressed by the petitioner. 5.This Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 05.12.2024 Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No sji 3/4

N.ANAND VENKATESH.J., sji To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.

2.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.

3.The District Superintendent of Police, Office of the District Superintendent of Police, Korampallam, Tuticorin District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Order made in Dated : 05.12.2024 4/4