Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/1615/2016disposed of

P.B.Chinnavenkata Raja v. The Superintendent Of Police,

2016-01-29Honourable Mr Justice S. Vaidyanathan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.01.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN CRL.OP.(MD)No.1615 of 2016 P.B.Chinnavenkata Raja : Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thalaiyuthu Police Sub Division, Thalaiyuthu, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Mannur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

: Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry on the complaint dated 26.12.2015 made by M/s.Shymala Minerals, againt the petitioner.

For Petitioner :Mr.P.Athimoolapandian For Respondents :Mrs.Prabha Government Advocate(Crl. Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction, directing the respondents not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry on the complaint dated 26.12.2015 made by M/s.Shymala Minerals, againt the petitioner.

2. The main grievance of petitioner is that without any valid reason, the respondent police harassing the petitioner. The said submission of the petitioner is gainsaid by the Government Advocate (crl.side).

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), on instruction, would submit that petition enquiry was conducted and there is no such harassment against the petitioner and if any interrogation or any further investigation is needed by the respondent against the petitioner, the norms which are mentioned in the Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610, would be followed. He would further submit that there will not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

be any harassment and the enquiry or interrogation would be done in accordance with law.

4. Recording the statement of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) that the 2nd respondent police would not harass the petitioner in future under the guise of any enquiry, the criminal original Petition is closed. However, if any person is having civil decree, as per the order of civil Court, the police shall give protection to the concerned. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the enquiry. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

To 1.The Superintendent of Police O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thalaiyuthu Police Sub Division, Thalaiyuthu, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Mannur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

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

+1cc to M/S.P.Athimoolapandian,Advocate in SR.No.5440 Order made in CRL.OP.(MD)No.1615 of 2016 Dated:-29.01.2016 MPK PA/SK-SKN/05.02.2016/2P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/