BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.09.2020 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN W.P(MD)No.10875 of 2020 Z.Lenington ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Marthandam Police Station, (Law and Order), Kanyakumari District.

3.Thatheus Mary

4.Vijayan ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to conduct enquiry based on the petitioner's complaint, dated 30.03.2019, pending on the file of the 1^st respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Christenson Jugunu For Respondents : Mr.S.Chandrasekar (R1 & R2) Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed praying to issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to conduct enquiry, based on the petitioner's complaint, dated 30.03.2019, pending on the file of the

1^st respondent.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is a District Secretary of Tamilnadu Anna Buildings and Labour Non Organisation, in which, there are 750 members are there. One Thatheus Mary W/o.Vijayan and her husband Vijayan, who are residing in Kanyakumari District, are not related to the said Organisation. However, they have intentionally received 14 membership forms and also received a sum of Rs.1400/-.

3. On 07.02.2018, the 3^rd respondent has put her signature and received 20 membership form from the petitioner. The above said membership worth about Rs.2,000/-. Further, on 13.02.2018, in the absence of the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent, without any information, had taken away the office table and chair. After knowing the same, the same was questioned by the petitioner, for which the 3^rd and 4^th respondents threatened and scolded the petitioner by using filthy language and also assaulted the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the 2^nd respondent police in person. Since no action was initiated on the said petition, on 30.03.2019, he submitted one another representation to the first respondent and the same is also kept under the cold storage. Accordingly, it is necessary to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.03.2019.

4. Upon considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, before entering into the merits and demerits of the Writ Petition, it is necessary to find out whether the Writ Petition filed by the writ petitioner is maintainable. At this juncture, it is relevant and useful to refer the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in K.R.Prabhakaran v. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai and Anr., reported in (2005 (2) L.W.(Cri) 549), wherein, this Court had clearly held that if the alternative remedy is available under Sections 156(3) and 200 Cr.P.C., the Writ jurisdiction is not maintainable. The relevant portion of the Judgment reads as follows:-

“3. In our opinion, if it is alleged that a crime has been committed and some one goes to file an F.I.R., and either the F.I.R. is not lodged at the police station, or, having been lodged, it is alleged that proper investigation is not being done by the police, then the remedy of the complainant is to make an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate mentioning all these facts, and it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to lodge the FIR and/or to do a proper investigation of the alleged crime. The Magistrate can also pass suitable directions to monitor the investigation if he thinks that it has not been properly held. Hence, in our opinion, the complainant has an equally efficacious remedy under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to file a suitable application before the Magistrate. Apart from that he has also another alternative remedy of filing a private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. In view of these alternative remedies it is not a fit case for exercising our writ jurisdiction...”

5. Further, the Division Ben