N.Kumar v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.04.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5583 of 2023 Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (DCB), Pudukkottai District.

3.C.Pandiaraja ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to direct the 2nd Respondent police not to interfere in civil dispute between the Petitioner and 3rd Respondent in O.S.No.8021 of 2022 in the court of XVI City Civil Judge, at Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Sundaravadivel For R1 and R2 : Mr.Veerakathiravan Additional Advocate General For R3 : Mr.K.Dinesh 1/6

O RDER This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd Respondent police not to interfere in civil dispute between the Petitioner and 3rd Respondent in O.S.No.8021 of 2022 in the court of XVI City Civil Judge, at Chennai

2. When the matter was heard on 27.03.2023, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the there is no subsequent complaint given by the third respondent and the earlier complaint was closed, after enquiry. But, the third respondent appeared and stated that he had given an another complaint, now it is kept pending. So on that ground, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor requested to enquire the above said matter and report before this court.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that based on the complaint given by the third respondent on 16.03.2023, now the enquiry has been undertaken by District Crime Branch, Pudukkottai District.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the earlier complaint has been closed, since because, there was no documents produced by the defacto complainant. Even now, the petitioner is ready to 2/6

settle the amount which is involved in the above said sale transaction.

5. The the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that apart from the above said sale transaction issue, serious allegation has been made against the petitioner that he received money, promissing to sell the property, which according to him are forged documents.

6. The third respondent has also submit that the enquiry must go on, since the allegations are serious in nature.

7. In reply to the above said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the enquiry may undertaken, but harassment should not be made to the petitioner.

8. What type of harassment that the petitioner is going to face, can not be a matter of consideration or discussion by this Court in this matter. The first and second respondents are directed to conduct enquiry in this matter. If any trouble arises during the course of enquiry, the petitioner can workout his remedy through appropriate proceedings. 3/6

9. With the above said, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

06.04.20223 NCC:Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Indu 4/6

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (DCB), Pudukkottai District.

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

5/6

G.ILANGOVAN. J.

Indu 06.04.2023 6/6