G. Suriya Devi, F/A, v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.02.2018

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM CRL.O.P.(MD)No.205 of 2018 G.Suriya Devi ... Petitioner -vs1. State represented by The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. The Inspector of Police, Dhadikombu Police Station, Dindigul District.

3. Ganesan

4. Muthumala

5. M.Sakthivel .

... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner under grab of conducing inquiry in Crime No.411 of 2017, on the file of the 2nd respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balaji For R1 and R2 : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R3 and R4 : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen

ORDER

This Petition has been filed by the petitioner, to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry in Crime No.411 of 2017.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is aged about 26 years and she is the daughter of the respondents 3 and 4. He further submitted that the petitioner is working in M/s.Green Zee Company at Theni District. He further submitted that the respondents 3 and 4 have compelled the petitioner to marry the fifth respondent and for that, she did not agree and left the family and now she is staying nearby the working place. He further submitted that the third respondent gave a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

complaint before the second respondent, based on the said complaint, the case has been registered in Crime No.411 of 2017 under the caption of woman missing. He further submitted that the respondents 3, 4 and 5 are giving pressure on the second respondent and in turn, the second respondent is harassing the petitioner and compelling the petitioner to marry the fifth respondent.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 has submitted that the respondents 3 and 4 have now decided not to marry the petitioner with the fifth respondent, and therefore, the petitioner need not have any apprehension about her marriage. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) has submitted that the second respondent has not compelled the petitioner to marry the fifth respondent and only for investigation purpose, she was called.

5.Since the petitioner is a major lady, she is entitled to take decision independently with regard to her marriage. The petitioner's parents (respondents 3 and 4) should not compel her to marry any one against her wish and the second respondent should not harass the petitioner based on the aforesaid First Information Report.

6.With the aforesaid submissions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. The Inspector of Police, Dhadikombu Police Station, Dindigul District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+ 1 CC TO Mr.A.HAJA MOHIDEEN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 47164 + 1 CC TO Mr.S.BALAJI, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 47040 IA TE/SKN-RSK/SAR-4 : 06/03/2018 : 2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ CRL.O.P.(MD)No.205 of 2018 08.02.2018