← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/3184/2016dismissed

I.P.Yesudoss v. The Inspector Of Police

2016-02-12Honourable Ms. Justice R.Mala2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.02.2016 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.No.3184 of 2016 I.P.Yesudoss .. Petitioner Vs.

The Inspector of Police (law & Order), K-5, Peravallur Police Station, Periyar Nagar, Chennai.

.. Respondent Prayer:-Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner or his visitors by illegal visits and questioning at his premises.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Venugopal For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction, directing the respondent not to harass the petitioner or his visitors by illegal visits and questioning at his premises.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted some people in civil dress stating that they are from the office of the respondent police harassing him under the guise of enquiry. He further submitted that even though a case has been registered against, a Committee has been constituted headed by Mr.C.Manickam, District Judge (Retd.) to settle the amount to the depositors. Hence, he pray for a direction, directing the respondent police not to harass the petitioner. 3.Resisting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that already the petitioner was arrayed as accused in six cases, viz., C.C.Nos.396/2012, 143/2013, 437/2012, 531/2012, 446/2012 and 971/2015. He further submitted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

that according to the respondent, they have not approached the petitioner and they never called him for enquiry. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4.Considered the rival submissions made by both sides and perused the typed set of papers.

5.The petitioner has been arrayed as accused in six criminal cases. A Committee has been constituted headed by Mr.Manickam, District Judge (Redtd.) and they are taking steps to disburse the amount to the depositors. On instructions from the respondent police, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no harassment and the petitioner was never called for enquiry. Furthermore, the representation made by the petitioner shows that some people stating that they came from the office of the respondent police has called the petitioner for enquiry and there is no evidence to show that the respondent police alone has making harassment. Further, since the petitioner is an accused in six cases, he want to avoid interrogation and hence, he has filed this petition. So, I am of the view that no such direction is necessitated. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition deserves to be dismissed. 6.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police (law & Order), K-5, Peravallur Police Station, Periyar Nagar, Chennai.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Chennai.

+1cc to M/S.M.Venugopal, Advocate, S.R.No.9065 Crl.O.P.No.3184 of 2016 sns(CO) srg(03/03/2016) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/