P. Anandharajakumar v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI P.Anandharajakumar ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

4.Karthick Manikandan ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to harass the petitioner and his family members on the guise of enquiry.

1/7

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Palanichamy For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl) For R4 : Mr.Mayilvahana Rajendran

ORDER

Seeking to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to harass the petitioner and their family members under the guise of enquiry, this criminal original petition is filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on a complaint received as against the petitioners from the 4th respondent police, the 3rd respondent police is subjecting him to harassment in the guise of enquiry and hence, this petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on instructions submitted that complaint has been received from the 4th respondent in a job racketing matter, following which the 2nd respondent has issued summons, dated 08.01.2026 and 13.01.2026. The matter is still pending. 2/7

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not at all a matter of job racketing, but he had borrowed an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- from the 4th respondent. In this regard, a dispute has arisen between the 4th respondent and the petitioner. However, the 4th respondent had given a false complaint as against the petitioner and respondent police is subjecting him to harassment.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent categorically contended that it is not a dispute about receipt of any loan, but it is a clear case of job racketing.

6. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. It is understood that the petitioner has been called only after serving proper service summons by the 2nd respondent police for an inquiry on the complaint received from the 4th respondent. 3/7

8. To allay the petitioner's apprehensions and to ensure fairness, the following directions are issued:

(a) With respect to the complaint received against the petitioner, the respondent-police shall issue written summons/notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C/35(3) BNSS, specifying the date, time, and purpose of enquiry. Oral or informal summons are prohibited.

(b) The enquiry, if undertaken, shall be completed within two weeks from the date of the petitioner's appearance. (c) If the police, upon enquiry, conclude that a cognizable offence is made out and propose to register an FIR, the petitioner shall be given prior written notice, enabling him to seek legal remedies including anticipatory bail. (d) If the dispute is found to be civil in nature, the complaint shall be closed forthwith, without any coercive or intimidatory action.

4/7

9. With these directions, this Direction Petition stands disposed of.

23.01.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No gbg To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, 5/7

Madurai.

6/7

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

gbg 23.01.2026 7/7