Madras High Court
A.G.Karthik Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 April, 2022
W.A(MD)No.344 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A(MD)No.344 of 2022
A.G.Karthik Kumar .. Appellant
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Home Secretary,
Secretary,
St.George Fort,
Chennai - 9.
2. The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Chennai.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
South Zone,
Madurai.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Tenkasi,
Tenkasi District.
6. The Inspector of Police,
Tenkasi Police Station,
Tenkasi,
Tenkasi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
W.A(MD)No.344 of 2022
7. Balamurugan
Inspector of Police,
Law and Order,
Tenkasi police station,
Tenkasi District.
8. A.Prakash
9. A.Rajesh
10.A.Dinesh .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 20.12.2021 made in W.P.(MD) No.22537
of 2021.
For Appellant : Mr.S.M.Anantha Murugan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sidharthan,
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 to R6
JUDGMENT
[Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.]
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated
20.12.2021 recorded on W.P.(MD) No. 22537 of 2021. This
appeal is by an unsuccessful writ petitioner.
2. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted
that, the relief prayed by the petitioner ought to have been granted
by learned Single Judge. It is submitted that this appeal be
entertained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.344 of 2022
3. Having heard learned advocate for the appellant
and having considered the material on record, this Court find as
under :-
3.1 The petitioner is aggrieved by the late filing of an
FIR by the concerned police officer, pursuant to the order of the
Magistrate dated 04.10.2021. According to him, that FIR ought to
have been registered not later than 11.10.2021, however it came to
be registered as late as 15.11.2021. The late filing of FIR on the
complaint of the writ petitioner has led to the grievance of the
petitioner to the extent that the concerned police officer should have
been prosecuted departmentally by respondent authorities. It is this
writ petition which is dismissed by learned Single Judge holding that
it is for the concerned disciplinary authority to take a call.
3.2 We find that, the dismissal of writ petition with
this satisfaction can not be said to be erroneous in any manner
which may call for any interference by this Court. This appeal
therefore needs to be dismissed. From the record we find that, the
complainant is a legal consultant / practitioner. He wanted to invest
some money and he feels to have been cheated by the other side.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.344 of 2022
This is an additional factor why this writ petition ought not to have
been entertained.
4. For the above reasons, this writ appeal is
dismissed. No costs.
[P.U., J] [R.V., J]
12.04.2022
Index : No
ssm/8
To
1. The Home Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretary, St. George Fort,
Chennai - 9.
2. The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Chennai.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
South Zone, Madurai.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
6. The Inspector of Police,
Tenkasi police station,
Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.344 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
(ssm)
W.A(MD)No.344 of 2022
12.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
