Chinnakkan v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 03.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Chinnakkan ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Palamedu Police Station, Madurai District.

3.Malaichamy 4.Amaravathy ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to conduct proper enquiry and take appropriate actions against the 3rd and 4th respondents upon the petitioner's complaints dated 19.11.2025 and 24.11.2025 in accordance with law within a stipulated time period. 1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.Ramesh M, Advocate For R1 & R2 : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to conduct proper enquiry and take appropriate actions against the 3rd and 4th respondents upon the petitioner's complaints dated 19.11.2025 and 24.11.2025 in accordance with law within a stipulated time period.

2. This writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, after dispensing with the notice on the private respondents.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that, due to a land dispute, on 19.11.2025 at about 6.30 p.m., the 3rd respondent, along with his 10 henchmen, entered the petitioner's property, misbehaved with the petitioner's daughter, abused the petitioner in filthy language, and threatened them with dire consequences. Owing to the said incident, the petitioner attempted to lodge a complaint with the 2nd respondent; however, the same was not even received, and the petitioner was advised to cooperate with the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, detailed 2/5

representations dated 19.11.2025 and 24.11.2025 were submitted to the 1st and 2nd respondents. Despite receipt of the same, no action has been taken. Hence, the present petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side, and perused the materials available on record.

5. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondent to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, nonconsideration of the representation made by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Without going into the merits of this case, this Court hereby direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider the petitioner's representations dated 19.11.2025 and 24.11.2025 and deal with in accordance with law and conclude the enquiry within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

3/5

7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. 03.12.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes mkn To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Palamedu Police Station, Madurai District.

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

4/5

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

mkn 03.12.2025 5/5