Jayaraman vs The District Collector and The Superintendent of Police

G. Rajasuria, J.—This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to dispose of petitioner''s representation dated 27.11.2008.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. D. Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate, who took notice on behalf of the

respondents.

The grievance of the petitioner as aired by the learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the averments in the affidavit accompanying

the writ petition, is to the effect that despite the petitioner lodged complaint with the police concerned, no action has been taken; hence,

representation dated 27.11.2008 was given to the respondents, still there was no action. Hence, this writ petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would come forward with the submission that one Sundararajan fabricated false document as though the

petitioner sold his land in his favour and thereby crabbed his land.

Heard the learned Government Advocate.

At this juncture, my mind is reminiscent and redolent with the judgment of this Court dated 18.07.2007 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.6616 of 2007,

communicated vide circular ROC. No. 1110B/07/F/MB P.Dis. No. 5/2007, dated 30.07.2007, which was circulated to all Magistrates in Tamil

Nadu, which would adequately protect the interest of the petitioner. I could recollect fruitfully the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Sakiri

Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , which also would posit the aforesaid legal proposition only.

If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the police officials in registering a case, it is for him to file necessary application

u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned, who is expected to act in accordance with law and as per the aforesaid decisions cited

supra. As such the petitioner is directed to resort to such a procedure.

With the above said observation and direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.