Pon. Bharathan v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Pon.Bharathan ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2.The Commissioner of Police, Commissioner Office, Madurai.

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Y.Othakadai, Madurai District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Y.Othakadai Police Station, Madurai District.

5.The Inspector of Police, Thilagar thidal C4 Police Station, Madurai District.

1/5

6.Muthaiah ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, to direct the fourth respondent police not to harass the petitioner and his family under the guise of enquiry and not to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the sixth respondent and to pass such further or other orders as this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Pandian For R-1 to R-5 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the fourth respondent police not to harass the petitioner and his family under the guise of enquiry and not to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the sixth respondent.

2. According to the petitioner, there is a property dispute pending between the petitioner and the private respondent and thereby, the sixth 2/5

respondent lodged a false complaint against the petitioner. Based on the said complaint, the fifth respondent harassed the petitioner and obtained statement from the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed this petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the official respondents would submit that based on the complaint given by the sixth respondent, they called the petitioner for enquiry and thereafter, they closed the complaint of the sixth respondent after enquiry. During the enquiry, they have not harassed the petitioner. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication in this case.

4. Considering the limited scope of prayer sought for in this petition, this Court without even issuing notice to the sixth respondent inclined to pass orders in this petition.

5. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent harassed the petitioner and fifth respondent obtained statement forcibly. The same is stoutly denied by the respondents 4 and 5. Therefore, recording the above said 3/5

submission of the fourth and fifth respondents, this Criminal Original Petition stands closed.

20.03.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Commissioner Office, Madurai.

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Y.Othakadai, Madurai District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Y.Othakadai Police Station, Madurai District.

5.The Inspector of Police, Thilagar thidal C4 Police Station, Madurai District.

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

4/5

P.DHANABAL, J.

BTR 20.03.2025 5/5