Disposed

P. Eswari v. the Superintendent of

Madras HC1 Sept 2014WP(MD)/12516/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ and criminal petition were clubbed where a petitioner sought the return of a house key and registration of a complaint. The court directed the Commissioner of Police to investigate the closure of a prior complaint and appoint an independent officer.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Commissioner of Police to call for records, appoint an independent officer, and enquire into the matter.

P. Eswari Vs the Superintendent of — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.09.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.12516 of 2014 and

¶7

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14327 of 2014

¶8

P.Easwari

¶9

... Petitioner in both W.P. & Crl.O.P.

¶10

-vs-

¶11

1.The Superintendent of Police Madurai District, Madurai

¶12

2.The Inspector of Police (Law and Order) Tallakulam Police Station Tallakulam, Madurai District ... Respondents 1 & 2 in both W.P. & Crl.O.P.

¶13

3.Thangam ... 3^rd Respondent in W.P.

¶14

PRAYER (in W.P.(MD) No.12516 of 2014): Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to hand over the key in respect of the petitioner's house in Plot No.29, Survey No.874/1, situated at Chokkikulam Village, Madurai District, which was received from the third respondent and handed over the third party by the second respondent.

¶15

PRAYER (in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14327 of 2014): Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., directing the second respondent to register a case on the petitioner's complaint, dated 14.07.2014 and proceed with the same as per law within the time frame.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jayaram (in both W.P. & Crl.O.P)

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, A.G.P., for R1 & R2 (in both W.P. & Crl.O.P)

¶18

COMMON ORDER

¶19

Since the relief sought for in both the writ petition as well as the criminal original petition are inter-connected with each other, both petitions were clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order. With the consent of both parties, they are taken up for final disposal.

¶20

¶21

2. The petitioner in the writ petition seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to hand over the key in respect of her house in Plot No.29, situated at Chokkikulam Village, Madurai District, which was received from the third respondent and handed over the third party by the second respondent. Whereas in the criminal original petition, she seeks for a direction upon the second respondent to register a case based on her complaint, dated 14.07.2014, and proceed with the same as per law within the time frame.

¶22

3. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner and the third respondent are sisters. It appears that there are financial transactions between them in which the petitioner lent certain sums of money to her sister the third respondent and since there was default in payment, the petitioner demanded the repayment immediately and according to the petitioner the third respondent handed over the key in respect of the said house situated at Plot No.29, Survey No.874/1, situated at Chokkikulam Village, Madurai District, to the petitioner and put her in possession of the same by an unregistered sale deed and based on which the petitioner made certain improvement works in the property. Thereafter, with the help of the Police the third respondent opened the house and came into and thereafter handed over the key of the house to third parties.

¶23

4. The petitioner would submit that the third respondent borrowed certain amounts from the petitioner and for the purpose of security, she handed over the possession of the said property to the petitioner by an unregistered sale deed and part of the amount is paid and in order to secure the interest, the petitioner is agreed to give the property. However, the possession of the said property continues to be remained with the third respondent.

¶24

5. The respondent Police in their counter affidavit stated that since the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, they were not interfered with the dispute and they have not compelled to hand over the key and such other matters as alleged by the petitioner.

¶25

6. The learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the complaint given by the petitioner has been enquired and subsequently it was closed without even registering FIR. However, this fact has not been borne out by any records by the respondent Police and it is not known what is the nature of the enquiry, which was conducted by the respondent Police and in the counter affidavit what has been stated is based on the written instructions from the petitioner, the complaint given by her has been closed. Hence, for all the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the entire facts have not been disclosed by the second respondent and it appears that the Police has some role to play in the dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent.

¶26

7. In the light of the above, there will be a direction to the Commissioner of Police, Madurai, to look into the matter by calling for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the entire records relating to the complaint given by the petitioner and appoint an independent officer to enquire into the matter and then proceed in accordance with law.

¶27

¶28

8. With the above observation, both the writ petition and the criminal original petition are disposed of. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶29

/True Copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

To:

¶32

1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai District, Madurai

¶33

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

¶34

3.The Inspector of Police (Law and Order), Tallakulam Police Station, Tallakulam, Madurai District.

¶35

+1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No. 49220 +1cc to Mr.A.John Vincent Advocate, Sr.No. 49179 +1cc to Mr.R.Jayaraman Advocate, Sr.No. 49338 krk AA/11.09.2014/3p-7c/

¶36

W.P.(MD) No.12516 of 2014 and Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14327 of 2014

¶37

01.09.2014

¶38

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

P. Eswari v. the Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Eswari v. the Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeppiaar, Vs the District Collector

Kamatchiamma Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Poornamayan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Sara Aqua Minerals, Vs the Bureau of Indian Standards

P. Senthil Ganesh, Vs the Joint Registrar

K.Selvendran Vs the Distric Collector