Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/9169/2019disposed of

S. Gokul v. The Superintendent Of Police,

2019-07-01Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.07.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9169 of 2019 S.Gokul : Petitioner

Versus

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

2.The Inspector of Police, Palani Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District.

: Respondents Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner in the name of enquiry.

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Sukumar For Respondents : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.side) *******

ORDER

This petition has been filed to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry. 2.According to the petitioner, already some cases have been foisted against him for theft and robbery. Now, for the past two years, he is living peacefully and all of the sudden, the second respondent Police is harassing the petitioner under the guise of enquiry. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

3.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that already twelve theft and robbery cases have been registered against the petitioner in Dindigul, Thoothukudi and Tirunelveli Districts. Hence, for the purpose of enquiry, the petitioner has been called https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

for by the second respondent Police. Now, the second respondent Police is only conducting patrol in the area, the petitioner without appearing for the enquiry, filed the present petition, only in order to avoid the enquiry.

4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that already twelve cases are pending against the petitioner, only the second respondent Police is conducting the patrol in the area and the second respondent specifically denial that they are harassing the petitioner, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Hence, I find no merit in the Criminal Original Petition and accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, the second respondent is directed not to harass the petitioner in the absence of any specific complaint pending against him. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AD-I) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar(CS- ) Tsg To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Palani Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

+1 CC to M/s.B.SUKUMAR, Advocate ( SR-73049[F] dated 03/07/2019) Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9169 of 2019 Dated: 01.07.2019 ES/22.07.2019/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/