Saravanan v. Deputy Superintendent Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL.O.P.No.1505 of 2022 Mr.Saravanan
...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.
2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.
...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the 2nd Respondent not to harass the the petitioner based on the Petitioner's representation dated 11.01.2022 other than due process of law. For Petitioner :Mr.M.Suresh Sankar For Respondent :Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking a direction, to direct the 2nd Respondent not to harass the petitioner based on the petitioner's representation dated 11.01.2022.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though in the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, it is mentioned that the petitioner received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as loan from the de-facto complainant, which pertains to civil dispute, the same has given criminal colour and the respondent police are harassing the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner has given the detailed representation to the respondents 1 and 2 on 11.01.2022, but the respondent police have failed to consider the same and harassing the petitioner under the guise of enquiry. Hence, this petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that one Mythili had lodged a complaint against the petitioner and Karunakaran stating that they had illegally transferred the petitioner's money from her account to the account of the petitioner and thereby taken away around 13 lakhs. When the petitioner were called for enquiry, he failed to appear. He further submitted that the now the de-facto complainant Mythili stated that the transactions are being reflected in the bank account. It is his further contention that though the petitioner is called for enquiry, he has failed to appear.
4. This Court on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and finding that there is a tangible complaint,directs the respondents to register the complaint, in the manner known to law.
5. This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar arr To
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.
2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
+1 CC to Mr.K.G. Senthil Kumar, Advocate sr 5052. CRL.O.P.No.1505 of 2022 PCH(CO) SP(11/02/2022) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/