Madras High Court
R.Venkatraman vs The Commissioner Of Police on 2 July, 2014
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.07.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.P.(MD)No.5168 of 2014 and M.P.(MD).Nos.2 of 2014 1.R.Venkatraman 2.R.Loga Sundram ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thilagar Thidal Police Station, Madurai City. 3.Nagarajan 4.Mariraja ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third respondent not to insist the petitioners to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.89 of 2014 pending before the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai and to surrender the possession of scheduled mentioned property with the fourth respondent. !For Petitioners : Mr.C.M.Arumugam For respondents : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, 1 & 2 Addl. Government Pleader For 3rd respondent : No appearance For 4th respondent : Mr.R.Sevugaraja :ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for a writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent not to insist the petitioners to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.89 of 2014 pending before the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai and to surrender the possession of scheduled mentioned property to the fourth respondent.
2.It is the main grievance of the petitioners that the third respondent is insisting the petitioners to withdraw the suit filed by them in O.S.No.89 of 2014 for permanent injunction against the fourth respondent herein before the District Munsif Court, Madurai. While so, the fourth respondent has given a false complaint against the petitioners before the second respondent. Based on that complaint, the second respondent directed the petitioners to appear before him on 03.03.2014 for enquiry. During the enquiry on 03.03.2014, the petitioners were threatened by the respondents to vacate the premises. Hence, they have come forward with this writ petition for the relief stated supra.
3.The second respondent has filed a counter stating that the fourth respondent herein has lodged a complaint on 04.03.2014 seeking action against the petitioner. On receipt of the complaint, CSR No.51/2014, dated 04.03.2014, was assigned and the petitioners were called for enquiry. In the said enquiry, both the parties came forward an amicable settlement. Hence, the enquiry was closed on 04.03.2014. Hence, the allegations made by the petitioners that they were harassed and the second respondent compelled the petitioners to sign on a statement, are totally wrong. In fact, the civil suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.89 of 2014 was dismissed for default by the Principal District Munsif, Madurai, vide order dated 20.03.2014. Thus, they sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
4.When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the second respondent has enquired the petitioners only based on the complaint given by the fourth respondent and after enquiry, they closed the complaint. The respondents 1 & 2 have no intention to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioners and the fourth respondent.
5.In view of the above submission made by the learned Government Advocate, I am of the opinion, there is no need to pass any specific direction in this writ petition. Hence, recording the statement made by the learned Government Advocate, this writ petition is closed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs.
To
1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City.
2.The Inspector of Police, Thilagar Thidal Police Station, Madurai City.