G.Susi Krishnaveni v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.09.2021

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL.O.P.No.15696 of 2021 G.Susi Krishnaveni ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State, Represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

2. The State, Represented by the Inspector of Police, E-2, Royapettah Police Station, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014.

... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the second respondent police not to harass the petitioner in any manner in respect to the complaints in C.S.R.No.243 of 2021 dated 17.04.2021 and C.S.R.No.433 of 2021 dated 23.07.2021 pending on the file of the second respondent Police.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathish Rajan.

For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodharan, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

(This case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner seeks protection from the police not to harass.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was earlier called for enquiry in C.S.R. No.176 of 2021 on the complaint of one Balasubramanian. The petitioner had gone to the

2nd respondent police station and there, she was enquired, gave explanation and returned. Thereafter, again she received a notice in C.S.R.No.243 of 2021 on the complaint of the same Balasubramanian and another notice in C.S.R.No. 433 of 2021 on the complaint of one Vijayan. The petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent police on 30.07.2021 and 31.07.2021 and gave her explanation. Thereafter, she was forced to execute cheques in favour of the complainants. Further, using the cheques, the petitioner is pressurised to settle the issue, otherwise cheating case would be booked against the petitioner and her husband Anand. The petitioner is an employee in L.I.C. Office and the petitioner's husband is a gambler. The complainants in this case viz.

, Balasubramaniam and Vijayan are also gamblers, who used to visit the club regularly and they used to play rummy game for money. The petitioner is no way connected with the activities of her husband and the petitioner has got no contacts with the complainants in this case. Since the petitioner is employed in L.I.C. office, through her, the complainants are attempting to settle whatever dues, they have with K.Anand. When the petitioner went to the 2nd respondent police station on 30.07.2021 and 31.07.2021, they made her to stand and wait in the police station for whole day and thus, harassed forgetting for the moment that the petitioner is a lady and employed in respectable organisation. But, she was deliberately made to wait in the police station for the whole day.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that on the complaints of one Balasubramanian and Vijayan, the petitioner was called for enquiry. The petitioner appeared along with her husband and both the petitioner and her husband executed cheques to settle the dispute and pay back the amounts to complainants viz., Balasubramanian and Vijayan. Now, she filed a petition that she was harassed.

4. Heard both the learned counsels appearing for petitioner and respondent through video conference.

5. On perusal of materials, it is seen that the petitioner is a lady and employed in L.I.C. and her husband has some relationship with the complainants and not with the petitioner. In view of the same, the respondent police is directed not to unnecessarily summon the petitioner without any tangible materials and desist from exerting pressure to issue any cheques or any other negotiable instruments.

6. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rpp/ham To

1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

2. The Inspector of Police, E-2, Royapettah Police Station, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

CRL.O.P.No.15696 of 2021 PVS (CO) K.RK. (24.09.2021)