Madras High CourtWP(MD)/19512/2013dismissed as infructuous

Rajendran, v. The Superintendent Of Police

2016-08-05Honourable Mr Justice S.S. Sundar2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 05.08.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR W.P(MD)No.19512 OF 2013 & M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013 Rajendran

...Petitioner

.-Vs-.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli.

2.The Sub- Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, District Police Office, Subramaniapuram, Tiruchirappalli.

3.K.P.Subbu @ K.P.Subramanian ..Respondents.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent relating to the proceedings of his summons dated 23.11.2013 to quash the same and directing the second respondent not to harass the petitioner in the guise of conducting enquiry without resorting to due process of law.

For Petitioner :Mr.M.Karunanithi For Respondents :Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar Govt.Advocate for R1 & R2 :No appearance for R3

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent relating to the proceedings of his summons dated 23.11.2013 to quash the same and directing the second respondent not to harass the petitioner in the guise of conducting enquiry without resorting to due process of law.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Though the petitioner has raised the legal issues about the jurisdiction and the authority of the second respondent to issue

summons without registering a First Information Report, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 produced a letter from the second respondent stating that the complaint given by the petitioner had already been sent to District Crime Branch, Trichy, after finding that there is no cause of action for registering the case under the Land Grabbing Act.

3. Recording the submissions of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 that no further action is contemplated against the petitioner by the second respondent and no further adjudication is necessary in this writ petition, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli.

2.The Sub- Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, District Police Office, Subramaniapuram, Tiruchirappalli +1 CC to Mr.M.KARUNANITHI, Advocate, SR No.42987 W.P(MD)No.19512 OF 2013 05.08.2016 gsr SH/SS-2:23.08.2016:3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/