1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD).No.1030 of 2011 P.Duraisamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Police Head Quarters, Pudukottai Road, Tiruchirapalli. 2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thathiengarpettai, Musiri Taluk, Trichy District. 3.P.Murugesan ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.12.2010 and not to interfere in the civil rights of the petitioner. For petitioner : Mr.V.Singan For respondents : Mr.K.A.Nandagopalan, 1 & 2 Addl. Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to consider his representation dated 24.12.2010 on merits and not to interfere in his civil rights. 2.According to the petitioner, he has filed a civil suit against the third respondent before the Civil Court, Tiruchirapalli, praying for a decree of partition. The said suit is now pending consideration by the trial Court. 3.In the meantime, the third respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner before the second respondent and he has summoned the petitioner to the Police Station on 23.12.2010. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the second respondent has made attempts to settle the matter and thereby interfering in his civil rights. This made the petitioner to file the writ petition. 4.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 & 2. 5.The learned Additional Government Pleader on written instructions from the second respondent submits that a complaint was preferred by the third respondent against the petitioner and on the basis https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 of the said complaint, the petitioner and the third respondent were summoned to the Police Station. Both the petitioner and the third respondent agreed that they will abide by the judgment and decree to be passed by the civil Court and they would not take the law into their own hands. Accordingly, the complaint was disposed of by the second respondent. 6.The only grievance of the petitioner is on account of his summoning by the second respondent to the Police Station and their attempt to settle the matter notwithstanding the pendency of the Civil Suit. Now the second respondent himself has stated that the petitioner was summoned only on the basis of the complaint preferred by the third respondent and the said complaint was closed subsequently as the third respondent himself has stated that he is withdrawing the complaint. Since the complaint preferred against the petitioner is withdrawn, there is no need to summon the petitioner to the Police Station on that account. Therefore, I am of the view that no further orders are necessary in the writ petition. 7.The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation. No costs. gcg Sd/- Deputy Registrar[Accounts] /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Police Head Quarters, Pudukottai Road, Tiruchirapalli. 2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thathiengarpettai, Musiri Taluk, Trichy District. +1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.3575. Order in W.P.(MD).No.1030 of 2011 Dated:28.01.2011 2P/4C RPB 23.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/