L.Vinod Kumar Sharma v. Assistant Commissioner of Police

O R D E R The Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 02.11.2024 and 04.11.2024 and to take criminal action against the 3rd respondent within the stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.

¶2Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on record.

¶3Since no adverse order is being passed as against the third respondent, notice to the third respondent is hereby dispensed with.

¶4According to the petitioner, he filed complaints dated

02.11.2024 and 04.11.2024 before the second respondent-Police alleging that third respondent herein, who is the proprietor of Sree Vari Enterprises and Plot Promoters, has committed criminal intimidation, breach of trust, cheating and fraud against the petitioner. However, the second respondent-Police has failed to register the case against the third respondent for reasons best known to them. Hence, the present petition.

¶5Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after coming to know about the filing of the complaints, the third respondent approached the petitioner and tried to settle the matter and now the settlement talks are going on.

¶6Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, submitted that as it is informed that settlement talks are going on to settle the disputes amicably between the parties, the complaints given by the petitioner are kept pending. However, so far they have not settled the matter.

¶7When a complaint is lodged, it is the duty of the Police authority to conduct enquiry, after enquiry, if they prima facie found cognizable offence, they have to register the complaint and proceed with the complaint in accordance with law. However, keeping the complaint pending under the guise of settlement is unwarranted. Therefore, the second respondent-Police is directed expedite the enquiry and file a report before the jurisdictional Court. In case prima facie allegations are made out against the third respondent, register a case and proceed with the case further in accordance with law.

¶8With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

25.07.2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No ms To

¶1The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thiruvotriyur Zone, Chennai – 600 019.

¶2The Inspector of Police (Crime), H8, Thiruvotriyur Police Station, Thiruvotriyur, Chennai – 600 019.

¶3The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. P.VELMURUGAN, J ms

25.07.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.07.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN L.Vinod Kumar Sharma ... Petitioner Vs. 1. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thiruvotriyur Zone, Chennai – 600 019. 2. Inspector of Police (Crime), H8, Thiruvotriyur Police Station, Thiruvotriyur, Chennai – 600 019. 3. Padmanabhan ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider the representations dated 02.11.2024 and 04.11.2024 by the petitioner and to take criminal action against the 3rd respondent regarding the same within the stipulated time as fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi For Respondents : Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 and R2