A. Subramanian v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.04.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1. A. Subramanian

2. S.Rajendran ... Petitioners Vs

1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Thirukkurungudi Police, Tirunelveli District.

4. Kamaraj ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS to direct the 1st respondent to instruct the 3rd respondent, not to harass the petitioners repeatedly, by way of appearing before the 3rd respondent police, under the guise of enquiry without due process of law. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Rajesh Kanna For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi(R1-R3) Additional Public Prosecutor 1/5

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent to instruct the 3rd respondent, not to harass the petitioners repeatedly, by way of appearing before the 3rd respondent police, under the guise of enquiry without due process of law. 2.According to the Petitioner, there is a money dispute between the Petitioner and the 4th Respondent, in respect of purchase of immovable property. Thereby, the 4th Respondent has lodged a complaint against the Petitioner. Taking advantage of the same, the 3rd Respondent has frequently called the Petitioner for enquiry. In this regard, he also sent a representation on 12.03.2025, but the same has not been considered. Hence this petition.

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that there is a money dispute between the Petitioner and the 4th Respondent and based on the complaint given by the 4th Respondent, they have called the Petitioner for enquiry. Already, the Petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs to the 4th Respondent and assured to pay the remaining amount on or before 2/5

02.04.2025. Since the petitioner has not repaid the remaining amount as agreed, once again the 4th Respondent has approached the 3rd Respondent. Therefore, the 3rd Respondent police have called the Petitioner for enquiry. Apart from that, they have not harassed the Petitioner.

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

5.According to the Petitioner, the 3rd Respondent has harassed the Petitioner under the guise of enquiry, but the 3rd Respondent denied the same and as per the complaint lodged by the Petitioner, they have called the Petitioner for enquiry. Since the Petitioner also paid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs and not paid the remaining amount, as agreed, the 3rd Respondent has called the Petitioner for enquiry and apart from that, they have not called the petitioner for enquiry.

3/5

6.Recording the aforesaid submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this petition stands closed. 04.04.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No PNM To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Thirukkurungudi Police, Tirunelveli District.

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

4/5

P. DHANABAL, J.

PNM ORDER IN 04.04.2025 5/5