J. George Sebastian v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL J.George Sebastian ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City.

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Thilagarthidal, Madurai City.

3.The Inspector of Police, Karimedu Police Station (Crimes), Madurai City.

4.K.Venkatesan ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, to direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to harass the petitioner on the complaint given by the fourth respondent and pass such any or other orders as this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Moushica For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/5

For R-4 : Mr.R.Ramanujam

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to harass the petitioner on the complaint given by the fourth respondent.

2. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner and already a civil suit in O.S.No.57 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai is also pending and an interim injunction was also granted on 02.02.2015. While so, the fourth respondent lodged a false complaint and based on the false complaint, the respondents 2 and 3 called the petitioner frequently on the guise of enquiry. He also appeared in person on 18.03.2025. In spite of that again repeatedly they called the petitioner under the guise of enquiry. 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 fourth respondent, they called the petitioner for enquiry and the petitioner also 2/5

appeared twice and sought adjournment to produce some documents and thereafter, he did not appear and now filed this petition. Since the complaint of the fourth respondent is pending, they will complete the enquiry within a week.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would submit that the fourth respondent entrusted a case to the petitioner and paid a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- and thereafter, the petitioner filed a case in the name of another Advocate and thereafter, the fourth respondent came to know that he is not at all enrolled as an Advocate on the date of filing of the suit and also the petitioner obtained unfilled pronote and cheques from the petitioner and the same are under the custody of the petitioner and now the petitioner demanding three crores from the petitioner. Therefore, he lodged a complaint before the third respondent and the same is pending for enquiry.

5. The fourth respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner and based on the same, the third respondent called the petitioner for enquiry and the petitioner also appeared and thereafter, sought adjournment to produce documents and thereafter, he did not appear for enquiry. While so, the second respondent also assured to complete the enquiry within a week. 3/5

6. In view of the same, recording the above said submission of the third respondent, this Court directs the third respondent to complete the enquiry and take appropriate action in accordance with law within one week from the date of this order.

7. With the above said observations, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

24.03.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City.

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Thilagarthidal, Madurai City.

3.The Inspector of Police, Karimedu Police Station (Crimes), Madurai City.

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

4/5

P.DHANABAL, J.

BTR 24.03.2025 5/5