← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/4161/2025disposed of

X.Naveen Arokiaraj v. The State Of Tamilnadu

2025-03-06Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL X.Naveen Arokiaraj ... Petitioner Vs

1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector General of Police, Trichy Region, Trichy.

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

3. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Karur, Karur District.

4. The Inspector of Police, Velliyanai Police Station, Karur District.

5. The Sub Inspector of Police, Velliyanai Police Station, Karur District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original petitions have been filed under Section 528 of BNSS to direct the fourth respondent not to harass the petitioner 1/5

under the guise of enquiry and consequently not to conduct the kangaroo Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gokulraj, For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the fourth respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry and consequently not to conduct the kangaroo Court. 2.According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent called the petitioner and stated that the father of the petitioner borrowed money and thereby, he has to pay money to the complainant. But the petitioner no way connected with the alleged transactions occurred between the father and the defacto complainant. However, the fifth respondent insisted the petitioner to repay the money on behalf of his father. 2/5

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that one Ganesh lodged a complaint against the petitioner and his father and thereby, they called the petitioner for enquir. Aalready the respondent police assigned C.S.R.No.5 of 2025 and thereafter, they closed the complaint. The fifth respondent never insisted the petitioner to settle the loan borrowed by his father as alleged by him. Per contra, they called the petitioner for enquiry based on the complaint given by the said Ganesh. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication in this case.

4.Since it is represented that the respondent police has not harassed the petitioner and only based on the complaint given by the said Ganesh, the petitioner was called for enquiry, recording the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

06.03.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No LR 3/5

To

1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector General of Police, Trichy Region, Trichy.

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

3. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Karur, Karur District.

4. The Inspector of Police, Velliyanai Police Station, Karur District.

5. The Sub Inspector of Police, Velliyanai Police Station, Karur District.

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

4/5

P. DHANABAL, J.

LR 06.03.2025 5/5