Subbulakshmi v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.03.2025

CORAM

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

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai, Tamil Nadu 625 002.

2. The Inspector of Police, Alankanullar Police Station, Alankanullar, Madurai District.

3. Gobinath ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original petitions have been filed under Section 528 of BNSS to direct the 2nd respondent and his police officials that not to harass the petitioner in the guise of enquiry based on the 3rd respondent's complaint and further to direct the 2nd respondent and his police officials that not to interfere into the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.Mohamed Abdul Basiq For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar (R1,R2) Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent and his police officials that not to harass the petitioner in the guise of enquiry based on the 3rd respondent's complaint and not to interfere into the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent.

2.According to the petitioner, the petitioner is the owner of the property in S.Nos.103/1B. 103/2, 103/3, 104/1, 104/2 and 104/3 at Periya Ilandikulam Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. While so, he entered into an agreement with the 3rd respondent for sale of property. There was some dispute between them in respect of execution of agreement. In this regard, the 3rd respondent has lodged a complaint against the petitioner. Taking advantage of the same, the respondent police called the petitioner for enquiry insisted the petitioner to settle the matter. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation, but the same has not been considered. Hence this petition.

2/5

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner and the 3rd respondent had entered into an agreement, thereafter, the petitioner failed to execute the sale deed and refused to return the amount. Therefore, the 3rd respondent has given a complaint before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent has conducted enquiry and closed the same on 21.02.2025. Apart from that they have not harassed the petitioner. 4.Since the prayer of the petitioner is not to harass the petitioner and the respondent police has called the petitioner only for enquiry and the complaint against the petitioner was also closed, nothing survives for further adjudication. Recording the aforesaid submission of the respondent police, this petition is closed.

17.03.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No PNM 3/5

To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai, Tamil Nadu 625 002.

2. The Inspector of Police, Alankanullar Police Station, Alankanullar, Madurai District.

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

4/5

P. DHANABAL, J.

PNM ORDER IN 17.03.2025 5/5