The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash a police summons as infructuous, based on a letter stating no further action was contemplated by the police.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED 05.08.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
W.P(MD)No.19512 OF 2013 & M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013
Rajendran ...Petitioner
.-Vs-.
1.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Sub- Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, District Police Office, Subramaniapuram, Tiruchirappalli.
3.K.P.Subbu @ K.P.Subramanian ..Respondents.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent relating to the proceedings of his summons dated 23.11.2013 to quash the same and directing the second respondent not to harass the petitioner in the guise of conducting enquiry without resorting to due process of law.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Karunanithi For Respondents :Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar Govt.Advocate for R1 & R2 :No appearance for R3
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent relating to the proceedings of his summons dated 23.11.2013 to quash the same and directing the second respondent not to harass the petitioner in the guise of conducting enquiry without resorting to due process of law.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Though the petitioner has raised the legal issues about the jurisdiction and the authority of the second respondent to issue
2
summons without registering a First Information Report, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 produced a letter from the second respondent stating that the complaint given by the petitioner had already been sent to District Crime Branch, Trichy, after finding that there is no cause of action for registering the case under the Land Grabbing Act.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
/True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
2.The Sub- Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, District Police Office, Subramaniapuram, Tiruchirappalli
W.P(MD)No.19512 OF 2013
05.08.2016
gsr SH/SS-2:23.08.2016:3P/4C
Rajendran
The Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirappalli District
The Sub Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell
K.P.Subbu @ K.P.Subramanian
S.S.Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
