Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/9117/2019disposed of

Pandaram, v. The Superintendent Of Police,

2019-06-28Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.06.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9117 of 2019 Pandaram ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendant of Police, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

2.The Deputy Superintendant of Police, Sathankulam, Tuticorin District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Sathankulam Police Station, Sathankulam, Tuticorin District.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner by interfering with the mater purely civil in nature on the basis of petitioner's representation dated 03.06.2019. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Vadivelan For R1 to R3 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This petition has been filed to direct the second respondent police not to harass the petitioner.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has entered into an sale agreement with one Pappathy and received a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as sale consideration. Since the petitioner was not able to execute the sale deed in time as agreed by him due some property dispute with his sister, the said Pappathy lodged a complaint before second respondent. Based on the said complaint, the second respondent is harassing the petitioner under the guise of enquiry. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner has already sent a complaint against the second respondent to the Superintendant of Police. He further submitted that the complaint lodged against the petitioner has been enquired by the third respondent / Inspector of Police and the same was closed by him.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents.

5. Considering the fact that the complaint lodged by the petitioner against the second respondent is pending with the first respondent / Superintendant of Police and the complaint lodged against the petitioner has been enquired and closed, the respondent police is directed not to harass the petitioner.

6. With this direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AD-II) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar(CS- ) ta To 1.The Superintendant of Police, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

2.The Deputy Superintendant of Police, Sathankulam, Tuticorin District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Sathankulam Police Station, Sathankulam, Tuticorin District.

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

+1 CC to M/s.T.VADIVELAN, Advocate ( SR-72395[F] dated 01/07/2019 ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9117 of 2019 28.06.2019 ES/12.07.2019/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/