Dismissed

V.Kamala v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC16 Aug 2024WP/5501/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus directing police to remove an alleged trespasser from her premises and restore possession, alleging inaction on her complaint. Police stated the complaint was closed after compromise between parties. The Court held the matter was a civil dispute over possession which police cannot adjudicate and dismissed the petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petitioner given liberty to approach appropriate civil forum.

V.Kamala Vs The Inspector of Police — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.5501 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 16.08.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

W.P.No.5501 of 2022

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.No.5581 of 2022

¶9

V.Kamala ... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, Arakonnam Taluk, Ranipet District.

¶12

Munusamy ....Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to exercise the statutory powers under Criminal Procedure Code to take action against the second respondent/trespasser referred in the petition and restore the petitioner's possession of the premises No.17, New Street, Pudurpettai, Arakonnam Taluk, Ranipet District after removing trespasser.

¶14

For petitioner : Mr.G.Appavu For R1 : Ms.G.V.Kasturi Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.N.Deivanayagam

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Page No.1 of 5

¶18

W.P.No.5501 of 2022

¶19

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to issue writ of mandamus

¶20

directing the first respondent to exercise the statutory powers and to take action against the second respondent referred in the petition and to restore the petitioner's possession of the premises No.17, New Street, Pudurpettai, Arakonnam Taluk, Ranipet District after removing trespasser.

¶21

According to the petitioner, her mother purchased a property of land to an extent of 1560 sq.ft through a registered sale deed dated 13.09.1971 and has also constructed a house in the said property. While so, her paternal uncle's son Subramania Mudaliar requested her to permit him to stay temporarily in the said property on condition to vacate as and when he demands possession. The portion of the house was occupied temporarily by Munusamy Mudaliar and requested him to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the house. Further, lodged a compliant to the police on 02.10.2021 through registered post with acknowledgement. But the police have not taken any action and hence, he has filed this writ petition.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

Page No.2 of 5

¶25

W.P.No.5501 of 2022

¶26

petitioner has lodged a complaint to the first respondent for trespassing of the property by second respondent but the first respondent police has not taken any steps and hence, aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶27

The learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent would submit that the petition of the petitioner was already considered and CSR No. was given and after enquiry both the petitioner and the second respondent entered into compromise and thereby, the matter was closed.

¶28

The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that this is a civil matter and already this matter has been settled.

¶29

In reply to that, the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶30

submitted that without the knowledge of the petitioner, the police with joining hands of the second respondent has closed the petition. The petitioner has not participated in the proceedings as alleged by the first respondent.

¶31

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Page No.3 of 5

W.P.No.5501 of 2022

record.

On a careful perusal of the records, it is observed that there is

¶37

a civil dispute pending between the parties in respect of the possession of the property. The petitioner has issued notice to the second respondent and he has also filed a complaint before the first respondent police. According to the respondents, the petitioner had given complaint and then the given complaint was closed as both parties have compromised. Even as per the complaint, the matter is a civil dispute and the respondent police cannot take any action. Since the matter pertains to civil dispute, this Court cannot issue any direction through this writ petition and hence, it is liable to be dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate

¶38

forum in accordance with law. Connected W.M.P is closed. No costs.

¶39

16.08.2024

¶40

vca Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Citation : Yes/No

¶41

P.DHANABAL,J.

¶42

Vca

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

Page No.4 of 5

¶45

W.P.No.5501 of 2022

¶46

W.P.No.5501 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.5581 of 2022

¶47

16.08.2024

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

Page No.5 of 5

V.Kamala v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Kamala v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaliyagurumoorthi Vs B.Thenmozhi

Vinoth Ravichandran Vs the State Rep.by

Sideeshvaran Vs state rep by

M/S.Psg Hospitals Owned by P.S.Govindaswamy Naidu and Sons Charities Vs the Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board

J.Edwin Yesupatham Vs the State Rep by Its

T Sivakumar Vs the State Rep. by Its