Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/3144/2018disposed of

Soundar Rajan v. The Superintendent Of Police

2018-03-15Honourable Mr Justice P. Rajamanickam3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.03.2018

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM Crl.O.P(MD).No.3144 of 2018 Soundar Rajan ... Petitioner -Vs1. The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Kattanur Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

4. Thiruveni

5. Soundarya ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the second and third respondents not to harass the petitioner on the guise of enquiry and not to interfere in the family dispute of the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthukumar For Respondents : Mr.Prabu Ramachandran (for R1 to R3) Government Advocate (Crl.side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the second and third respondents not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and the fourth respondent got married in the year 1995 and out of wedlock, the fifth respondent was born in the year 1998 and thereafter, the respondents 4 and 5 left from the family and they are now living separately.

3.He further submitted that the fourth respondent has lodged a complaint before the police stations viz., Therkuvasal Police Station, Avaniyapuram Police Station, Theppakulam Police Station and Thiruparankundram Police Station in Madurai District and those complaints were closed as they are false complaints. After exhausting remedies before the police Stations at Madurai District, now, the fourth respondent has lodged a complaint before the second respondent, All Women Police Station at Virudhunagar District and also lodged another complaint before the third respondent. He further submitted that based on the above said complaints, the respondents 2 and 3 are harassing the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) has submitted that the fourth respondent has lodged a complaint before the second respondent and based on that, CSR.No.48 of 2018 has been issued and the same is pending for enquiry. He has further submitted that no complaint has been received by the third respondent.

5.Considering the aforesaid submissions, the second respondent is directed to expedite the enquiry and if the enquiry reveals any cognizable offence, then he has to register a case and proceed in accordance with law. Instead of doing so, she should not harass the petitioner unnecessarily.

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

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(w) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1 .The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Kattanur Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

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

+1cc to Mr.S.Muthukumar, Advocate Sr.No.55410 RMK VB/SKN/RSK/SAR4/16.04.2018/3P/6C Crl.O.P(MD).No.3144 of 2018 15.03.2018