S.Gaurishankar v. The Commissioner Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.03.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP CRL.O.P (MD) No.3263 of 2024 S.Gaurishankar

...Petitioner

vs 1.The Commissioner of Police, O/o. the Commissioner of Police, Madurai, Madurai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, O/o. the Inspector of Police, Goodal Putur Police Station, Goodal Putur, Anayur, Madurai.

3.P.Dhanalakshmi 4.Baby 5.P.Praveena 6.Aravind 7.Ashesh Mishra 8.Anand Nair 1/6

9.Shurbanil 10.Saravana Kumar 11.Ragvendra 12.C.S.Viswanathan 13.Sabdhar Hussain 14.Laihaa Ishrath 15.Sheriff 16.Reshma 17.Luban Afreen 18.Remediano Varela 19.Dinesh Shetty 20.Dinesh Babu 21.Kursheeth Begum 22.Vishal Pradeep 23.Jeeva Bharathi 24.Santhanam

...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying, to direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to issue necessary police protection to the life and limb of the Petitioner and his family, on the basis 2/6

of the complaint of the Petitioner, dated 30.01.2024 within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Neelamegam For R1 & R2 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.side)

O R D E R

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner and the third Respondent were schoolmates and classmates during school days. The third Respondent came to the house of the Petitioner and introduced a scheme, whereby the Petitioner has to invest in the Share Market, for which he will get huge returns. He was also directed to canvass for the schemes. Based on the representation of the third Respondent, the Petitioner had canvassed with his friends and relatives, who are the Respondents 6 to 24. Subsequently, the third Respondent absconded and the attempts of the Petitioner to contact her also failed. Therefore, the Respondents 6 to 24 exerted pressure on the Petitioner to get back their amount, which forced the Petitioner to lodge a complaint against the third Respondent and also to seek police protection for the Petitioner's family members. 3/6

2.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), on instructions of the Respondents 1 and 2, submits that the complaint of the Petitioner did not contain any signature. The complaint was sent by Post, which shows that it was sent on 06.02.2024. The Petitioner had not given any complaint regarding the cheating and fraud committed by the third Respondent, P.Dhanalakshmi. The Petitioner had only sought police protection. 3.Considering the fact that the Petitioner was instrumental in canvassing many of his contacts for the scheme introduced by the third Respondent, the Petitioner shall co-operate with the pending investigation, if any registered by the second Respondent.

With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is closed. Internet:Yes./No 01.03.2024 Index:Yes/No mm 4/6

To 1.The Commissioner of Police, O/o. the Commissioner of Police, Madurai, Madurai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, O/o. the Inspector of Police, Goodal Putur Police Station, Goodal Putur, Anayur, Madurai.

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

5/6

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP , J.

mm CRL.O.P (MD) No.3263 of 2024 01.03.2024 6/6