Thangaraj, S/O.Perumal v. The Superintendent Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.03.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE Crl.O.P.[MD]No.3937 of 2019 Thangaraj : Petitioner Vs.

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

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul.

3.Lakshmana Aravindan : Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the second respondent herein not to harass the petitioner under the guise of complaint given by the third respondent by considering the representation given by the petitioner dated 28.02.2019.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Lawrance For R1 and R2 : Mr.V.Neelakandan Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioner complains that the second respondent is harassing the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent. This Court paid its anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has borrowed some amounts from the father of the third respondent. For the purpose of security, he had given a cheque to the third respondent's father. He had repaid the entire amount, but the cheque was not returned. When the cheque was demanded by the petitioner, the third respondent and another demanded huge rate of interest. Hence, the petitioner preferred a complaint against third respondent and others and as a counter blast, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

third respondent has preferred this false complaint. He also submitted that he had already appeared before the respondent police seven times and the nature of enquiry has crossed the tolerant levels and reached the levels of harassment.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor concurred with the last part of the petitioner's submission, but disputed the first part and submitted that there is a complaint pending against the petitioner that he had engaged in job racketing.

5. In such circumstances, the petitioner is now directed to prefer a representation / complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul, with the copy of the complaint he had earlier preferred and the District Crime Branch may act on the same as per law.

6. With the above direction, this criminal original petition is disposed of.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (W) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul.

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

+1 CC to M/s.J.LAWRANCE, Advocate ( SR-54552[F] dated 18/03/2019 ) TA Crl.O.P.[MD]No.3937 of 2019 15.03.2019 KM/(11.04.2019) 2P 5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/