Dismissed

Sivasakthibalan v. Superintendent of Police

Madras HC16 Mar 2017WP(MD)/4386/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking direction to the police to take action against named respondents. The court held that mandamus cannot be issued to direct police action in such matters, relying on precedent, and noted the police inquiry was already closed based on the girl's statement.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed with no costs.

Sivasakthibalan Vs Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.03.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.4386 of 2017

¶7

Sivasakthibalan ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Tirunelveli District.

¶10

2.State through Inspector of Police, Alangulam All Women Police Station, Tirunelveli.

3.SankarGanesh

4.Poomani

5.Thenkodi

6.Ramaraja

7.SudarOlivu

8.Arichandran

9.Karthigaiselvi 10.Velsamy

¶18

11.Subbulasumi .. Respondents

¶19

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to take action against respondents 3 to 11 herein based on the petitioner's representation dated 04.03.2017.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.KR.Singaravadivel

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader ***** O R D E R

¶22

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for mandamus to the respondent police to take action against respondents 3 to 11 on the complaint dated 04.03.2017 given by the petitioner.

¶23

2.In the light of the law laid down by this Court in Sugesan Transport Pvt. Ltd., v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, J2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Adyar Police Station, Chennai and another reported in 2016 (5) CTC 577, such a direction cannot be issued.

¶24

¶25

3.However, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the allegations of the petitioner is that his daughter is being ill-treated by respondents 3 to 11 and police recorded the statement of the petitioner's daughter by name Sornapadma and she in her statement stated that she is not being ill-treated by respondents 3 to 11. He would further submit that the complaint given by the petitioner has been closed on 08.03.2016.

¶26

4.In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar /True Copy/

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

1.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Tirunelveli District.

¶32

2.The Inspector of Police, Alangulam All Women Police Station, Tirunelveli.

¶33

+1CC to M/S. R.Singaravadivel, Advocate, SR.No. 15202 +1CC to the Special Government Pleader SR.No. 15531

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.4386 of 2017

¶35

16.03.2017

¶36

¶37

AM/SV MMS/28.03.2017/2P/5C

¶38

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

Sivasakthibalan v. Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivasakthibalan v. Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrasekaran Vs the Inspector of Police

Vengateshwaran Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

S.Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Paramasivan, Vs the Commissioner

Karuppiah Vs the Superintendent of Police

G.Kannan Vs the Commissioner of Police