J.Suresh Babu v. The Superintendent Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.03.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN J.Suresh Babu ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Salem District, Salem.

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem District.

3.Lakshmi Reddy ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,directing the second respondent not to harass the petitioner without due processes of law to secure the ends of justice and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit. For Petitioners : Mr.K.Kalaikovan For R1 and 2 : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Criminal side) 1/4

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed for directing the second respondent not to harass the petitioner.

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that complaint given was by one Govindarajan, alleging the receipt of Rs.14,05,700/-, on the promise of getting posting as Junior Assistant in Government of Tamil Nadu. On the basis of the complaint, Current Paper enquiry in C.No.61/DCB/SLM/23 dated 06.03.2023 is pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, another Current Paper enquiry for the same matter is pending in C.No.176 of 2023. He further submitted that, a sum of Rs.14,05,700/- was given to one Lakshmi Reddy. Govindarajan received certain money from Lakshmi Reddy through bank transaction and did not give complaint against her. Even after receipt of money, 2nd respondent is unnecessarily harassing the petitioner.

2/4

3. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that this is a case of job racketing. There are six accused in this case. On the basis of the complaint, Current Paper enquiry in C.No.61/DCB/SLM/23 dated 06.03.2023 is pending.

4. Considering the submission of learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), this Court is of the view that, it is a case of job racketing, there are prima-facie materials available to show that this accused and other accused are involved in the commission of cognizable offence, 2nd respondent need not have to conduct unnecessary enquiry. 2nd respondent can proceed against the accused in the manner known to law, including by arresting the accused. If any enquiry is required, enquiry must be conducted by following the procedure established by law. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. 29.03.2023 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order gd 3/4

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.J., gd To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Salem District, Salem.

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

29.03.2023 4/4