G.Chinnadurai v. The District Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.03.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL and W.M.P(MD)No.26139 of 2024 G.Chinnadurai ... Petitioner Vs

1. The District Superintendent Of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Thalaiyuthu, Tirunelveli.

3. Ragupathiraja, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thalaiyuthu, Tirunelveli.

4. The Inspector of Police, Sivanthipatti Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

5. Jairus Ponniah

6. Susithra Jairus ... Respondents 1/6

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Prohibition, directing the 1st respondent to restrain the 2nd respondent from conducting the Kattapanchayat in the nature of civil cases and consequently direct the 1st respondent to initiate the Disciplinary proceedings against the 3rd respondent for his atrocities made in the nature of civil cases. For Petitioner : Mr.B. Senthilkumar, For R1 to R4 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R5 & R6 : Mr.C.Susikumar

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to restrain the second respondent from conducting Kattapanchayat in civil cases and consequently to direct the first respondent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the third respondent for the atrocities made in the civil cases. 2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that there 2/6

is a civil dispute pending between the petitioner and the private respondents, thereby, the fifth respondent lodged a false complaint against the petitioner, based on the same, the third respondent frequently called the petitioner under the guise of enquiry by interfering with the civil dispute. Therefore, the petitioner sent the representations dated 04.12.2024 and 10.12.2024, but the same have not been considered. Hence this petition.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the fifth respondent lodged a complaint before the first respondent and the same was forwarded to the third respondent and for conducting enquiry, the third respondent called the petitioner. But the petitioner without appearing for enquiry filed this petition with false allegations. The third respondent has not conducted any kattapanchayat as alleged by the petitioner and only for enquiry purpose, they called the petitioner. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

4.The learned Counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 seeks for adjournment for filing counter affidavit.

3/6

5.Since the prayer is only as against the third respondent and to take disciplinary action against him, the counter affidavit of the private respondents is not necessary.

6.Since the prayer of the petitioner is to restrain the respondent police from conducting kattapanchayat and the third respondent denied the allegations leveled against him and the fifth respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner and the same was forwarded to the third respondent, thereby the petitioner was called for enquiry, recording the same, this Writ Petition is closed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

13.03.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No LR 4/6

To

1. The District Superintendent Of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Thalaiyuthu, Tirunelveli.

3. The Inspector of Police, Sivanthipatti Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

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

5/6

P.DHANABAL , J.

LR 13.03.2025 6/6