Rajesh.J v. The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Rajesh.J Managing Partner of M/s.Annai Steel No.315/1A, Wallajah-Maeleveeranam Road, Malveeranam Village Wallajah Taluk, Vellore District Tamil Nadu - 632 505 ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Inspector of Police EDF-II, BETA-5 Central Crime Branch Vepery, Chennai - 600 007

2. A.Mohammed Asik Jeppiaar Furnace and Steels Pvt. Ltd., No.158, Kunnavakkam Village Panrutti Post Kanchipuram District - 631 604

3. S.Habibur Rahman Director of Jeppiaar Furnace & Steels Pvt. Ltd. No.5, 1st Floor, Aarthi Chambers Old No.189, New No.188, Annasalai Chennai - 600 002 ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to direct the first respondent police not to harass the petitioner and 1/7

her family members as the facts of complaint given by the third respondent is purely business transaction and civil in nature. For Petitioner : Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar for M/s.R.Meenakshi For First Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the first respondent police not to harass the petitioner and her family members under the guise of enquiry.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had a business relationship with the third respondent from January 2020. In the year 2022, the petitioner received an unexpected summons from the Ranipet CCB to appear in person regarding a complaint from the 2nd respondent (Jeppiar Furnace). But the third respondent had given the complaint in the name of the second respondent against one Prem, but the summon was issued in the address of the petitioner and thereafter, the name was changed as Prem @ Rajesh. The petitioner was surprised as he believed that he had no outstanding dues. During enquiry, the DSP Mr.Ravichandran had demanded Rs.1 Crore, the alleged outstanding dues. The said DSP subjected the petitioner to 2/7

severe threats and harassment and also threatened the petitioner to issue a lookout notice against his family members who are residing in Australia and to deport them. Further, the DSP directly demanded 12 cheques each for Rs.5 lakhs (totalling Rs.60 lakhs) payable to Jeppiar Furnace to settle the complaint and also to avoid immediate arrest. The petitioner submitted to him that it is purely civil dispute and the petitioner is having proof to show that he paid the entire amount by way of cash to the third respondent staff Paven Kumar. The said DSP had not accepted and directed to comply his direction within 24 hours, otherwise the petitioner had to face explicit threats of arrest. Therefore, with no other option, the petitioner issued 12 cheques to secure his immediate release from the hands of CCB Ranipet.

However, till date, the second respondent neither deposited the cheques nor filed any commercial suit against the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner would prove the payment through evidence. Once against the third respondent gave a complaint before the first respondent and the first respondent issued a summon to the petitioner through e-mail directing him to appear on 09.06.2025 before the first respondent for enquiry and also asked the petitioner to come on whatsapp call.

the first respondent informing them that his Advocate will appear for enquiry along with relevant documents as the petitioner is currently residing at Australia for a medical treatment. Thereafter, his counsel appeared in person before the first respondent and connected the petitioner through whatsapp call. But without hearing the grievance of the petitioner and without perusing documents showing the payment of proof and also the cheques already issued via the said DSP, the first respondent directed the petitioner to send the money immediately to the third respondent through RTGS or NEFT and settle the complaint. The contention of the petitioner is that the complaint was given in the year 2022 for which, now the respondent police are harassing the petitioner. Further, it is purely a business transaction and civil in nature.

Therefore, the police have no authority to entertain the complaint. Hence, the present petition is filed seeking appropriate directions. 3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submit that the petitioner had not responded to the summons and therefore, he was asked to come through video call.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent 4/7

police and also perused the materials available on record.

5. It is seen from the records that already the petitioner has given an undertaking to the police regarding settlement of amount by issuing 12 cheques, which is unknown to law. The police has no authority/locus standi to interfere with the money transaction between the parties.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to give a direction to the respondent police not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.

7. However, if any fresh complaint is received, the respondent police is directed to issue notice under Section 35 of BNSS and conduct enquiry/investigation as the case may be by following due process of law and not to use any third hand method. On receipt of notice/summon, the petitioner is directed to co-operate for the enquiry/investigation as the case may be.

8. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

10.07.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No ksa-2 5/7

To

1. The Inspector of Police EDF-II, BETA-5 Central Crime Branch Vepery, Chennai - 600 007

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 6/7

P.VELMURUGAN, J ksa-2 10.07.2025 7/7