← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/4556/2025closed

Jegan.C v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

2025-03-12Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Jegan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvattar Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 24.02.2025 and thereby, direct the first respondent to second respondent to not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Cenil For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/5

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 24.02.2025 and to direct the respondents to not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.

2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner went to Chennai on 05.07.2022 for work and working as security and now the petitioner was transferred to Koodankulam on 24.02.2024. While so, on 18.01.2025, the second respondent conducted an enquiry with the petitioner regarding one Rajkumar, who is an accused in a murder case and the petitioner also appeared for enquiry. Again a team of persons came to the house of the petitioner on 21.02.2025 and took him in their custody and tortured him physically under the guise of enquiry and they illegally detained for the whole day. While so, the petitioner sent a representation, dated 24.02.2025 to take action against the officials, who harassed the petitioner but the same has not been considered. Therefore, the petitioner filed this petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents would submit that the case in Crime No.296 of 2024 was registered 2/5

for the death of one Jackson and the main accused is one Rajkumar, who is obsconding for the past 9 months and the said Rajkumar is frequently contacted with the petitioner and thereby, the police asked the petitioner for interrogation purpose but he has not cooperated for the interrogation. Apart from that, they have not harassed the petitioner as alleged by him. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. This Court had heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. In this case, according to the petitioner, the respondent police harassed the petitioner under the guise of enquiry and already he appeared before them and narrated all the facts, even after that, the respondent police harassed the petitioner. According to the respondents, the murder case in Crime No.296 of 2024 is pending against one Rajkumar, who has close nexus with the petitioner and thereby, the respondent police called the petitioner for enquiry. For enquiry purpose, they called the petitioner. Apart from that, they have not harassed the petitioner. However, if the presence of the petitioner is require, the respondent police is at liberty to issue appropriate summon in accordance with law. 3/5

6. Recording the above said submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents, this Criminal Original Petition stands closed.

12.03.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvattar Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

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

4/5

P.DHANABAL, J.

BTR 12.03.2025 5/5