Prabhu v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Prabhu ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by, The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Manavalakurichi Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
3.Chandrasekaran ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, to direct the first respondent to instruct the second respondent police not to interfere into the civil dispute under the guise of enquiry without due process of 1/5
law, on the basis of circular No.18/ADGP/L&O/Camp/2024, dated 09.01.2024 issued by the Additional Director General of Police Chennai and pass such other or further orders as this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sathiya Nathan For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to instruct the second respondent police not to interfere into the civil dispute under the guise of enquiry without due process of law.
2. According to the petitioner, there is a property dispute pending between the petitioner and the third respondent and based on that, the third respondent lodged a complaint as if the petitioner damaged the water tap worth about Rs.150/- but in fact the petitioner has not damaged the water tap. However, the third respondent lodged a false complaint against the petitioner. Based on the false complaint now the second respondent interfering with the civil dispute. Hence, the petitioner filed this petition. 2/5
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the official respondents would submit that there is a boundary dispute pending between the petitioner and the third respondent and thereby, the pipe belongs to the third respondent was damaged and he asked the petitioner to restore the said damaged water tap and thereby, some dispute arose between them. Already the third respondent lodged a complaint before the second respondent and the same was closed after elaborate enquiry. Again, the third respondent lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police and the same was forwarded to the second respondent and now the said complaint is under enquiry. They will conduct enquiry and dispose of the same within one week. During the enquiry, they have not harassed the petitioner as alleged in the petition.
4. Since the prayer of the petitioner is not to harass and not to interfere with the civil dispute and the respondents also only called the petitioner for enquiry purpose based on the complaint given by the third respondent, this Court recording the above said submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the official respondents directs the second respondent to complete the enquiry within a period of one (1) week from the 3/5
date of this order. It is needless to mention that if the complaint is civil in nature, the third respondent has to follow the circular issued by the Director General of Police in this regard.
5. With the above said directions, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.
04.03.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.
2.The Inspector of Police, Manavalakurichi Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4/5
P.DHANABAL, J.
BTR 04.03.2025 5/5