BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17/12/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P.(MD)No.11640 of 2008 Jayaraman ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose of petitioner's representation dated 27.11.2008. !For Petitioner ... Mr.T.Muruganantham ^For Respondents ... Mr.D.Sasikumar Government Advocate :ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to dispose of
petitioner’s representation dated 27.11.2008.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr.D.Sasikumar,
learned Government Advocate, who took notice on behalf of the respondents.
3. The grievance of the petitioner as aired by the learned counsel for the
petitioner placing reliance on the averments in the affidavit accompanying the
writ petition, is to the effect that despite the petitioner lodged complaint
with the police concerned, no action has been taken; hence, representation dated
27.11.2008 was given to the respondents, still there was no action. Hence, this
writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would come forward with the
submission that one Sundararajan fabricated false document as though the
petitioner sold his land in his favour and thereby crabbed his land.
5. Heard the learned Government Advocate.
6. At this juncture, my mind is reminiscent and redolent with the judgment
of this Court dated 18.07.2007 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.6616 of 2007, communicated vide
circular ROC.No.1110B/07/F/MB P.Dis.No.5/2007, dated 30.07.2007, which was
circulated to all Magistrates in Tamil Nadu, which would adequately protect the
interest of the petitioner. I could recollect fruitfully the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2008(2)
SCC 409, which also would posit the aforesaid legal proposition only.
7. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of
the police officials in registering a case, it is for him to file necessary
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned, who is
expected to act in accordance with law and as per the aforesaid decisions cited
supra. As such the petitioner is directed to resort to such a procedure.
8. With the above said observation and direction, this Writ Petition is
disposed of. No costs.
smn
To
1.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Virudhunagar District.