Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/5708/2025disposed of

Shanmugaeswari v. The State Of Tamilnadu

2025-03-27Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.03.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5708 of 2025 Shanmugaeswari ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli District.

3. Pandiyarajan

...Respondents

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jenifar Bibin For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry. 1/4

2. According to the petitioner, he is an employee of the 3rd respondent and there is a dispute between them in respect of employment. While so, the 3rd respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner before the 2nd respondent and taking advantage of the same, the 2nd respondent now harassing the petitioner under the guise of enquiry. Therefore, he sent a representation on 03.03.2025, but the same has been considered. Hence 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 now the same is pending. They have not harassed the petitioner as alleged by him.

4. Considering the prayer sought for in the petition, this Court without even issuing notice to the 3rd respondent inclined to pass orders.

5. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent harassed the petitioner, but the 2nd respondent has denied the same and only based on the complaint given by the 3rd respondent, they called the petitioner for enquiry. Therefore, it is for the 2nd respondent to complete the enquiry in accordance with law. In view of the same and recording the above said submission of 2/4

the 2nd respondent that they have not harassed the petitioner, this Court directs the 2nd respondent to complete the enquiry within a period of one week from the date of this order.

6. With the above said observation and direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

27.03.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Mac 3/4

P. DHANABAL , J.

Mac To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.

2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli District.

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

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5708 of 2025 27.03.2025 4/4