← Library
Madras High CourtWP/11209/2025disposed of

I.Saranya v. The Superintendent Of Police

2025-03-27Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and W.M.P.No.12648 of 2025

1. I.Saranya

2. V.Idayachandran ... Petitioners Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police Office, Chathuvacheri, Vellore- 632 009.

2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Superintendent of Police Office, Chathuvacheri, Vellore 632 009.

3. G.K.Manojkumar

4. K.S.Ramani ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the first and second respondents in any manner interfering with the civil dispute grossly in violation of PSO 562 of Tamil Nadu Police Standing orders under the guise of the complaint given by the third respondent and the summons issued by the second respondent dated 18.03.2025.

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Thennarasu For R1 and R2 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for direction, forbearing the first and second respondents in any manner interfering with the civil dispute grossly in violation of PSO 562 of Tamil Nadu Police Standing orders under the guise of the complaint given by the third respondent and the summons issued by the second respondent dated 18.03.2025.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) and perused the materials available on record.

3. It is seen that the first petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the fourth respondent on 01.12.2021 for her urgent needs. Therefore, she had executed a bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of the fourth respondent and also issued a cheque for the same. Thereafter, she had repaid the entire principal amount along with the

interest and the fourth respondent also returned the bond of Rs.10,00,000/-. While being so, the third respondent lodged a complaint before the second respondent, who intervened in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4.

4. On instructions, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that based on the complaint received from the third respondent, the summon has been issued to the petitioner and it is pending for investigation.

5. Even then, the first and second respondents have no role to play in the civil dispute pending between the petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4 to interfere. If any offence committed by the petitioner or the respondents 3 and 4, the second respondent is at liberty to proceed as against them in accordance with law.

4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 27.03.2025 (1⁄2) Index : Yes/No : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order mn

To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police Office, Chathuvacheri, Vellore- 632 009.

2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Superintendent of Police Office, Chathuvacheri, Vellore 632 009.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, mn 27.03.2025