P.Radhakrishnan v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.02.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL P.Radhakrishnan .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of Police Ramanathapuram

2. The Inspector of Police Paramakudi Town Police Station Ramanathapuram District 3.M.Pannerselvam .. Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to direct the second respondent to not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Senthil For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar No.1 and 2 Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry. 1/5

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed a writ petition forbearing the official respondents to grant FL.2 license to the third respondent at Gandhi Road, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District based on his representation dated 02.12.2024. Therefore the second respondent called the petitioner over phone and directed to settle the issue with the third respondent. This petitioner alsorequested the second respondent not to grant any no objection to the third respondent. Thereafter on 16.12.2024 the second respondent issued summons to the petitioner to appear on 20.12.2024 and the same was received by the petitioner on 19.10.2024. Thereafter the petitioner also issued reply to the respondents. Further the second respondent also frequently called the petitioner under the guise of enquiry, hence the present petition has been filed.

3. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the petitioner gave representation on 02.12.2024 not to grant permission to the third respondent to run bar with FL.2 license. Therefore for enquiry the second respondent called the petitioner but the petitioner did not appear for enquiry. In the meantime, he has filed this petition. The second respondent has not harassed the 2/5

petitioner but only for enquiry purpose they issued summons but the petitioner has not responded to the summons.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for by the petitioner in this petition this Court is inclined to pass order without issuing notice to the third respondent. According to the petitioner he sent a representation dated 02.12.2024 to the second respondent not to grant permission to the third respondent to run bar with FL.2 license and the same is also admitted by the second respondent. According to the second respondent they decided to conduct enquiry based on the complaint given by the petitioner and served summons to the petitioner to appear for enquiry but he did not appear and the petitioner also admitted that he did not appear for enquiry before the second respondent. Further no objection was already given by the first respondent to the third respondent to run the bar.

6. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) that the second respondent has called the petitioner 3/5

only for enquiry and apart from that they have not harassed the petitioner in any way. Further the representation of the petitioner was already closed. In view of the same, recording the above said submission the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. 20.02.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No aav To

1. The Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of Police Ramanathapuram

2. The Inspector of Police Paramakudi Town Police Station Ramanathapuram District 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

P.DHANABAL,J.

aav 20.02.2025 5/5