Dhanavel v. The State By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18.04.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and W.M.P.No.11525 of 2024 Dhanavel ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State by The Superintendent of Police, Erode District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Malayampalayam Police Station, Erode District.

3.Thirugnanasambandam The Inspector of Police, Malayampalayam Police Station, Erode District.

4.R.Ramesh ... Respondents Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to harass the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Mohan For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar 1/4

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that a money dispute between him and the 4th respondent, but giving criminal colour and based on the complaint, the police is harassing. 2.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police states that the petitioner was called for enquiry on the basis of complaint given by the 4th respondent. They are not harassing if he is able to produce the documents that there is only a civil dispute. The respondent police will complete the enquiry and closed the complaint, unless and until there is any criminality is made out. 3.

Recording the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent police to follow the procedure while conducting enquiry and closed the complaint in accordance with law. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 18.04.2024 rpl To 1.The State by 2/4

The Superintendent of Police, Erode District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Malayampalayam Police Station, Erode District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

rpl 3/4

18.04.2024 4/4