Disposed

S.Paulraj v. the Director General of

Madras HC25 Jan 2022WP(MD)/13180/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of the writ petition seeking mandamus to direct police to act against for filing a false case against the petitioner. The court directed the fourth respondent to communicate the closure report to the petitioner, who must then file a protest petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the fourth respondent to communicate the closure report to the petitioner to file a protest petition thereafter.

S.Paulraj Vs the Director General of — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.13180 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.01.2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN W.P(MD)No.13180 of 2019

S.Paulraj

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Director General of Police No.1, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai.

¶7

The Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil Town Kanyakumari District.

¶8

The Assistant Superintendent of Police Office of the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Kulachal, Kanyakumari District.

¶9

The Inspector of Police Kulachal Police Station Kanyakumari District

¶10

Velkani Now working as Inspector of Police Kulachal Police Station, Kanyakumari District

¶11

Sundar Singh Now working as Special Sub Inspector of Police, Kulachal Police Station, Kanyakumari District ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the respondents 5 to 6 as per the clause 120.4 reported in 2014 (1) LW (Crl) 1; Lalitha Kumari's case within the time frame that may be fixed by this Honble Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar For Respondents : Mr.P.Kottaichamy No.1 to 4 Government Advocate

¶14

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

¶15

1/3

¶16

W.P(MD)No.13180 of 2019

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking mandamus against the respondent 5 to 6 to act upon the complaint given by the petitioner following the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh.

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that on 21.04.2019 the petitioner and his wife were brutally assaulted by one Jackson and his friends. Due to the said attack, they sustained injuries on the head and other parts of the body. The petitioner and his wife were admitted in the Aasari Pallam Government Hospital, where the petitioner took treatment as inpatient for three days and his wife took treatment as inpatient for six days. This was brought to the notice of the fourth respondent police, by way of complaint. The said complaint was not registered. On the contrary a false case was foisted against the petitioner and his family members under Sections 107 of Cr.P.C.

¶20

It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the incident that took place on 21.04.2019, representation dated 10.05.2019 was sent to the higher authorities reporting dereliction of duty by the police attached to the Kulachal police station. Inspite of the representation made, no action action was taken, hence the present writ petition has been filed on 10.06.2019.

¶21

After filing the Writ Petition, the police has registered a case in Crime No.136 of 2019 on 12.06.2019 and without proper investigation has closed the complaint as 'Mistake of Fact'. The said closure report was also not communicated to the petitioner herein for further action.

¶22

This Court to verify the said averment called for the CD file and found that the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint closed as 'Mistake of Fact' on 14.09.2019 is correct and there is no acknowledgement to indicate that the defacto complainant was communicated about the closure report.

¶23

Hence after perusal of the CD file, this Court directs the fourth respondent police to communicate the closure report to the petitioner herein and on receipt of the same, the petitioner herein shall workout his remedy by filing protest petition and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶24

With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶25

// True Copy //

¶26

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶27

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

¶28

2/3

¶29

W.P(MD)No.13180 of 2019

¶30

¶31

The Director General of Police No.1, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai. 2. The Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil Town Kanyakumari District. 3. The Assistant Superintendent of Police Office of the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Kulachal, Kanyakumari District. 4. The Inspector of Police Kulachal Police Station Kanyakumari District +1 CC to M/s.NIRANJAN S KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-2497[F] dated 25/01/2022 ) W.P(MD)No.13180 of 2019 25.01.2022

¶32

MGJ(08.03.2022) 3P 6C

¶33

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

¶34

3/3

S.Paulraj v. the Director General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Paulraj v. the Director General of

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

Raja @ Rajapandi, Vs the Revenue Divisional

Mohamed Kaniyammal, Vs the Principal Secretary to

G.Mariyammal, Vs the Principal Secretary to the

V.Chellamuthu Vs the Superintendent of Police

S.Emmanuel Arun Kumar, Vs the Director General of

Chellavadivu Vs the Superintendent of Police