Chittal v. The State Rep. By The Assistant Commissioner Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.06.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Crl.O.P.No.18189 of 2025 Chittal ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The State represented by, The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Coimbatore District.

2. The Inspector of Police, C-3, Sai Baba Colony Police Station, Coimbatore District.

3. Nisha Sri.

... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS 2023, to issue a direction directing the second respondent herein not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry, on the basis of the representation dated 15.6.2025 made to the first respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Magesh Kumar For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to issue a direction, directing the second respondent herein not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry, on the basis of the representation dated 15.6.2025 made to the first respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondentPolice and perused the materials available on record.

3. Since there is no adverse order is being passed as against the third respondent, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the de-facto complainant/third respondent used to borrow money from the petitioner. In order to repay the borrowed amount, the defacto complainant agreed to sell her property and executed a sale agreement. With regard to the

dispute between them, the petitioner has filed civil suit in O.S.No.477 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruppur and the same is pending. Whereas, the defacto complainant/third respondent herein made a false complaint as against the petitioner before the first respondentPolice. The petitioner has also responded to the summons issued by the second respondent/Police, still the respondent-Police is harassing the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed this criminal original petition.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent-Police submitted that on enquiry, it is found that the defacto complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs only. The petitioner obtained signatures from the third respondent in the blank papers and created a document and also insisted for an exorbitant interest. The petitioner has also appeared before the respondent-Police for enquiry and he made a promise to produce the document. Thereafter, he did not turn up.

6. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature. Though the petitioner appeared before the respondent-Police and sought time to produce the relevant

document, subsequently, he has not produced the same before the respondent-Police. Hence, the petitioner is directed to produce the relevant document before the respondent-Police. On enquiry, the respondent-Police is directed to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law.

7.With the abovesaid direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

30.06.2025 mfa Index:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No

To

1. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Coimbatore District.

2. The Inspector of Police, C-3, Sai Baba Colony Police Station, Coimbatore District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

P.VELMURUGAN, J mfa Crl.O.P.No.18189 of 2025 30.06.2025