The petitioner has the right to seek appropriate remedies if aggrieved by the closure of the complaint by authorities.

ORDER

The present petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take necessary actions against the respondents 4 and 5 based on the petitioner's representation, dated 03.03.2025.

2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is the senior citizen and father of fourth and fifth respondents. The fourth and fifth respondents harassed the petitioner by demanding money from the compensation of the petitioner's wife. In fact the petitioner's wife was working as Sweeper, Karur Municipality and she died on 07.04.2020 while she was in the course of employment and the monitary benefits was received by the petitioner as well as the respondents. The petitioner received the monitary benefits of Rs.17,45,000/-. All other legal heirs of the wife of the petitioner including respondents 4 and 5 already gave no objection to receive the monitary benefits by the petitioner. The petitioner also spent a sum of Rs.8,45,000/- towards medical treatment to the deceased and also repaid the loan borrowed by the fourth respondent to a sum of Rs.3,20,000/-. That apart, the petitioner also gave a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- each to the respondents 4 and 5 in the presence of elders and again he paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to one Sengodan, who is another son of the petitioner. Therefore, he settle the amount to all the sons of the petitioner. While so, the respondents 4 and 5 again made threats to the petitioner to pay money to them. Therefore, he sent a representation, dated 03.03.2025 to the respondents 1 to 3 to take necessary action but the same has not been considered. Hence, the petitioner filed this petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent would submit that no any representation received from the petitioner and he also not approached the first respondent. If any petition filed by the petitioner, they will consider and take action in accordance with law.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit that they received the representation of the petitioner, dated 03.03.2025 and the dispute is between the father and the sons and thereby, they conducted enquiry and closed the same on 11.03.2025. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication in the present case.

5. Considering the limited scope of prayer sought for in this petition, this Court even without issuing notice to the private respondents inclined to pass orders in this petition.

6. According to the petitioner, he sent a representation to the respondents for the threats made by the respondents 4 and 5 but the first respondent has not received any representation from the petitioner. The third respondent also closed the complaint after enquiry. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to approach the first respondent for appropriate remedy and also the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the closure of the complaint, by the third respondent in the manner known to law, if he is aggrieved.

7. With the above said observations, this writ petition stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

18.03.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR To

1.The District Collector, Office of Collectorate, Karur District, Karur.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur.

3.The Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station, Karur, Karur District.

P.DHANABAL, J.

BTR

18.03.2025