Selvaraj v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.02.2024 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Selvaraj

...Petitioner

Vs.

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

2.The Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station, Karur District.

3.Muruganatham ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the second Respondent not to harass the Petitioner and his family members based on the enquiry. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Santhanam Rajeshkumar For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Veeranthiran, Government Advocate(Crl.side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the second Respondent not to harass the Petitioner and his family members based on the enquiry.

1/4

2.The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had filed this Petition seeking a direction against the first and second Respondents not to harass the Petitioner. It is the contention of the Petitioner that he was employed as Collecting Agent in Anjineya Private Finance, which is situated at Vellore. The third Respondent is the Manager of the said Company. He had lodged a complaint with the second Respondent forcing the Petitioner to come and join in the said Company at Vellore. Since the salary given to the Petitioner was not sufficient, he resigned the job and came back to his native place. The third Respondent is forcing the second Respondent to put pressure on the Petitioner to join in the above said Company.

3.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the first and second Respondents, on instructions, submitted that the third Respondent had given a complaint to the second Respondent stating that a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was missing from the Finance Company. Therefore, the Petitioner was summoned by the second Respondent. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) also submitted that not only the Petitioner, there are other persons involved in this case, namely Palanichamy, Sathish, Rajesh. By way of reply, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted 2/4

that the above said persons and the Petitioner are from the same village and they were employed as Collecting Agent in the same Company. 4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) admits that the third Respondent himself had requested the second Respondent not to proceed with the complaint. However, CSR is not closed till date. 5.Recording the submission of the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side), the second Respondent is directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2013 (6) CTC 353 and in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in [2014 (8) SCC 273] and to issue summon by specifying date and time, in case the presence of the Petitioner is required.

6.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. 16.02.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No gns 3/4

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP , J., gns To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Karur, Karur District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station, Karur District.

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

16.02.2024 4/4