S.Eswaran v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL S.Eswaran ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni-625 531.

2.The Inspector of Police, Cumbum North Police Station, Cumbum-625 516, Theni.

3.Rubesh @ K.Rubesh Humper Krishna ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, to direct the second respondent and his police officials that not to harass the petitioner in the guise of enquiry based on the third respondent's complaint and further to direct the second respondent and his police officials that not to interfere into the civil dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent based on the petitioner's representation, dated 13.03.2025 and to pass such further or other orders as this Court.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vidhya Sagar For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent and his police officials not to harass the petitioner in the guise of enquiry based on the third respondent's complaint and further to direct the second respondent and his police officials not to interfere into the civil dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent based on the petitioner's representation, dated 13.03.2025.

2. According to the petitioner, there are some money dispute pending between the petitioner and the third respondent and the same was already settled between them. Now the third respondent after three years alleging that the petitioner has to pay some commission, lodged the complaint before the second respondent. The second respondent also insisting the petitioner to settle the matter and the petitioner also sent a representation, dated 13.03.2025 but the same has not been considered. Hence, the petitioner filed this petition. 2/5

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the official respondents would submit that based on the complaint given by the third respondent, they called the petitioner for enquiry and thereafter, they conducted enquiry and the same was closed as money dispute. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication and the second respondent has not harassed the petitioner as alleged by him.

4. Since the prayer of the petitioner is not to harass the petitioner and the second respondent also admitted the complaint given by the third respondent against the petitioner and thereafter, the main petition itself was closed after enquiry, nothing survives for further adjudication in the present case.

5. In view of the same, recording the above said submission of the second respondent, this Criminal Original Petition stands closed. 20.03.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR 3/5

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni-625 531.

2.The Inspector of Police, Cumbum North Police Station, Cumbum-625 516, Theni.

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

4/5

P.DHANABAL, J.

BTR 20.03.2025 5/5