S.Ayyam Perumal v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.02.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP S.Ayyam Perumal ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2.The Inspector of Police, Uthumalai Police Station, Tenkasi District.

... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the second Respondent not to harass the Petitioner under the guise of an enquiry, in the light of the Petitioner's representation dated 25.01.2024.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Mari Chelliah Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthilkumar Additional Public Prosecutor 1/5

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking direction against the second Respondent not to harass the Petitioner under the guise of an enquiry, based on his representation dated 25.01.2024.

2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the initially the Petitioner was joined as Panchayat Clerk at Ariyanayakupuram Panchayat, Sankarankoil Panchayat Union. Subsequently, he was promoted as Panchayat Secretary and transferred to various places. Now, he has been working at Melakalangal Panchayat, Alangulam Panchayat Union. There was an audit at the office of Melakalangal Panchayat. On the basis of the audit report, the Block Development Officer of Alangulam Panchayat Union passed an order directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,08,340/- under various heads. Even before passing the order, the Petitioner went on leave from 03.11.2023 to 01.02.2024. The above recovery order was passed in his absence without issuing single show cause notice.

Being aggrieved by the recovery order, the Petitioner has taken steps to challenge the same by way of filing Writ Petition. While so, the Petitioner received phone calls from the second Respondent stating that the Deputy Block Development Officer lodged a complaint as against the Petitioner.

Petitioner and his family members were repeatedly harassed by the Respondent Police. Therefore, he was forced to file this petition seeking direction not to harass the Petitioner.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on instructions of the Respondents would submit that the Petitioner is alleged to have misappropriated the amount from the Panchayat Union Funds which was found in the internal audit. The Panchayat President lodged a complaint, based on which CSR No.75 of 2024 was registered and it is pending on the file of the second Respondent. Based on the CSR, the Petitioner was summoned by the second Respondent. Instead of appearing before the Respondent Police, the Petitioner had rushed to this Court by way of filing this Criminal Original Petition seeking direction not to harass the Petitioner.

4. In the light of the reporting ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1 and in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar reported in 2014 (8) SCC 273, the Respondents are directed to issue proper summons by specifying the date and time for appearance of the Petitioner. 3/5

5. As a citizen of this country, the Petitioner is duty bound to co-operate with, either the enquiry or the investigation. On receiving summons with the specified date and time, the Petitioner is directed to co-opearate with the Respondent Police regarding enquiry in CSR No.75 of 2024. The Respondents are directed not to harass the Petitioner by calling him or summoning him at odd hours.

6. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

06.02.2024 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Nsr To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

2.The Inspector of Police, Uthumalai Police Station, Tenkasi District.

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

4/5

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP , J.

Nsr 06.02.2024 5/5