P. Ayyappan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL CRL.OP(MD). No.4658 of 2025 P. Ayyappan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2. The Inspector of Police, Vachakarapatti Police Station, Virudhunagar.

3. Punitha, EOED Vazhnthu Kaatuvom Thittam (Uthamapalayam)

4. Mahalingam, ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to direct the 1st respondent to instruct the 2nd respondent to not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry based on the petitioner's representation dated 05.03.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr. A. Joseph Jerry For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Page No. 1 of 4

O R D E R

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the 1st respondent to instruct the 2nd respondent to not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry based on the petitioner's representation dated 05.03.2025.

2. According the petitioner, there is a dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent in respect of sale of grains (Corn). While so, the 3rd respondent lodged a complaint before the 2nd respondent and based on the same, the 2nd respondent police frequently called the petitioner for enquiry for the business transactions. Therefore, he sent a representation dated 05.03.2024, but the same has not been considered. Hence, he has filed this petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents no.1 and 2 would submit that based on the complaint given by the 3rd respondent, they called the petitioner for enquiry and thereafter, they closed the complaint of the 3rd respondent as it is business transactions. They have not harassed the petitioner as alleged in the petition.

Page No. 2 of 4

4. Considering the limited prayer sought for in this petition, this Court even without issuing notice to the respondent no.3 and 4 inclined to pass orders.

5. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent police have harassed the petitioner, but the 2nd respondent denied the same and based on the complaint given by the 3rd respondent, they called the petitioner for enquiry purpose. Since the complaint of the 3rd respondent was closed on 14.02.2025 by recording the above said submission of the learned Government Advocate, this Criminal Original Petition is closed. 13.03.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No mac Page No. 3 of 4

P.DHANABAL.

J, Mac To

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

2. The Inspector of Police, Vachakarapatti Police Station, Virudhunagar.

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

Crl.O.P(MD)No.4658 of 2025 13.03.2025 Page No. 4 of 4