S.Nagaraj v. State Rep By,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-06-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR S.Nagaraj Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The Commissioner of Police, Commissioner of Police Office, Nethimedu, Salem.
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police Central Crime Branch, K.S.V. Nagar, Narajthipatti, Salem-636 004.
3.The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch Police Station, K.S.V. Nagar, Narajothipatti, Salem-636 004.
Respondent(s) PRAYER This petition is preferred under section 528 of BNSS Act seeking to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner under the guise of an enquiry and not to interfere in the purely Civil/Business Dispute pending between the petitioner and the complainants (Selvakumar, Tamilselvan and others) and pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. For Petitioner(s):
Ms.I.Benisha for Mr.M.Dinesh 1/5
For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal side)
ORDER
The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents police not to harass the petitioner in the guise of enquiry.
2.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was summoned by the third respondent for an enquiry in C.No.37/ACP/DCB/Salem City, dated 09.02.2026 and on receipt of the summons, the petitioner has also appeared for an enquiry on 19.03.2026 giving his explanation and has also furnished supporting documents. The third respondent, without considering the same, has been calling the petitioner for enquiry often and in the guise of enquiry, the petitioner is being harassed. Hence, he has filed the present petition. It is further submitted that one Selvakumar and Tamilselvan are partners of S.K.Enterprises and they are doing cloth vending business. There was money transaction between the petitioner and one Parthis, who is the son of Mr.
Tamilselvan and the said Parthis had taken loan from the petitioner and there is some dispute with regard to the accounting. The petitioner hade demanded repayment of the loan amount. But, suppressing these facts, it has been projected as though the petitioner had taken the loan and failed to repay the same.
taking sides and harassing the petitioner.
3.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) has submitted that on a complaint forwarded from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, the third respondent has caused an enquiry and the petitioner had appeared for enquiry on 19.03.2026 and has also submitted certain documents. It is further submitted that the petitioner is required for an enquiry for further clarification. The learned learned Government Advocate has submitted that in future if the petitioner is required for an enquiry, summons would be served to the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner will be called for enquiry and it is further submitted that the enquiry would be completed within a period of two months. 4.This court heard the submissions made by both sides and has perused the materials available on record.
It is seen that there is a loan transaction and there arose dispute among the parties and therefore, the petitioner was called for enquiry. It is the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) that the enquiry would be completed within a period of two months. The said submission is recorded. Recording the same, this criminal original petition is disposed of. No costs.
08-06-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes vvk 3/5
To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Commissioner Of Police Office, Nethimedu, Salem.
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police Central Crime Branch, K.S.V. Nagar, Narajthipatti, Salem.
3.Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch Police Station, K.S.V. Nagar, Narajothipatti, Salem.
4.The Government Advocate (Criminal side), Madras High Court, Chennai.
4/5
M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.
vvk CRL OP No. 9876 of 08-06-2026 5/5