Very short mandate dismissing a writ petition seeking to restrain police from interfering in a civil property dispute. The court held the relief was redundant as the complaint was already closed as civil after the complainant withdrew it.
Writ petition dismissed as the complaint was closed as civil in nature and the relief became redundant.
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.
W.P(MD)No.14613 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.02.2022 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
W.P(MD)No.14613 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD).No.13159 of 2018 (Through video Conference)
1.B.V.Jeyasekar
2.B.V.Aravinda Sekar 3.B.V.Vidyasekar 4.B.V.Kripa Sekar ... Petitioners Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai.
3.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.
4.The Inspector of Police, B4-Keerathurai Police Station, Madurai.
5.K.V.R.S.Janarthanan 6.K.V.R.S.Prabakaran 7.R.J.Arulkumar 8.R.R.Subash
.. Respondents
Prayer in WP(MD). 14613/ 2018 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 from interfering in the civil dispute between the petitioners and the respondents 5 to 8 in respect of the properties of deceased B.K. Lalitha, wife of B.V. Kulasekar.
For Petitioners : MR.J.BHARATHAN, Advocate For R1 to R4 : Mr.A.THIRUVADI KUMAR Additional Public Prosecutor For R5, R6 and R8 : Mr.S.SUNDARARAJAN, Advocate
1/3
W.P(MD)No.14613 of 2018
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus restrain the police officials from interfering in the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 5 to 8 in respect of the property left behind by Late. B.K.Lalitha.
2.The facts of the case is that B.K.Lalitha died leaving behind the property, which was alleged to have been purchased by her husband in her name. Her husband is also no more. Therefore, the IIclass heirs are fighting over the property which stand in the name of Late B.K.Lalitha. A civil suit has already been filed and it is now stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit filed by the petitioners for declaration been allowed in their favour and the suit filed by the private respondents been dismissed.
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that a complaint by K.V.R.S.Prabakaran, who is the sixth respondent herein and the brother of the deceased B.K.Lalitha gave a complaint to the Kuruvithurai Police Station and based on the complaint, the police summoned the petitioners and thereafter, on enquiry, they found that the dispute is civil in nature and advised the complainant to work out his remedy before the civil Court, accordingly, the complainant, who is the sixth respondent herein had given an undertaking to withdraw his complaint and got redressal before the Civil Court. Recording the same, the complaint against the petitioners was closed as civil in nature. The proceedings of the Investigation Officer, dated 23.09.2019 produced before this Court by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
4.In the light of the above facts, this Court finds that there is no inference by the police in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 5 to 8 after the closure of the complaint. Therefore, the relief sought for in this writ petition has become redundant. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
2/3
W.P(MD)No.14613 of 2018
To
1.The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai. 2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai. 3.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, B4-Keerathurai Police Station, Madurai. 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 cc to Mr.T.R.JEYAPALAM, Advocate, SR.No.4593
W.P.(MD)No.14613 of 2018 Date:04.02.2022
SA (22.02.2022) 3P 7c
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued to restrain police from interfering in a civil dispute over property where proceedings have been closed as civil in nature
B.V.Jeyasekar
B.V.Aravinda Sekar
Inspector General of Police, South Zone
Deputy Inspector General of Police
Commissioner of Police, Madurai
K.V.R.S.Prabakaran
G. Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
