Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/2141/2018disposed of

M. Natarajan v. The Inspector Of Police

2018-02-12Honourable Mr Justice P. Rajamanickam2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.02.2018

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM CRL.O.P.(MD)No.2141 of 2018 M.Natarajan ... Petitioner -vs1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (South), Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

... 1st Respondent 2.Selvi ... Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to grant direction, directing the respondent not to harass the petitioner and his family members under the guise of enquiry, based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant namely, Selvi.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gurunathan For Respondent : Mr.Prabu Ramachandran No. 1 Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, to direct the first respondent not to harass the petitioner, under the guise of the enquiry, based on the complaint given by the second respondent.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is working as Lab Assistant in Government Higher Secondary School, Puliyarai and he is going to retire on 31.05.2019. He further submitted that the petitioner has married the second respondent on 10.02.1991 and subsequently, the second respondent left the matrimonial home and hence the petitioner has filed a divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.60 of 2005, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi and the same was allowed on 06.09.2008. But, subsequently, the second respondent has filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte order and the same was allowed. Subsequently, again an ex-parte decree was granted on 15.09.2015. He further submitted that the second respondent got married with one Johnson and after fifteen years, she lodged a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

false complaint stating that the petitioner has retained her jewels and based on the said complaint, the first respondent is harassing the petitioner.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has submitted that after receipt of the complaint from the second respondent, the petitioner was called upon for enquiry, but he did not appear for enquiry and hence the enquiry is still pending. 4.Considering the aforesaid submissions, the petitioner is directed to appear before the first respondent for enquiry and during the said enquiry, the petitioner should not be subjected to any harassment. The first respondent has to conduct the enquiry and if the enquiry reveals any cognizable offence, then he can register a case and proceed further in accordance with law. In case, the enquiry reveals only a Civil dispute, it is open to the first respondent to direct the parties to approach the Civil Court and get appropriate remedy.

5.With the aforesaid observations, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (South), Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madra High court, Madurai.

+1cc to Mr.K.Gurunathan, Advocate Sr.No.47770 SSS VB/SKN/RSK/SAR3/07/03/2018/2P/4C CRL.O.P.(MD)No.2141 of 2018 12.02.2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/