A. Aruldhas v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.04.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL A. Aruldhas ... Petitioner Vs

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

2. The Inspector of Police, Karungal Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

3. George Muthaiyan

4. Benedict Shakila ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner against law.

For Petitioner : Mr. C.T. Perumal For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar (R1-R2) Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/5

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner against law. 2.According to the petitioner, he has introduced one Sheik Mohammed to the Respondents 3 and 4 and they have entered into an agreement, thereby, they have paid amount to the said Sheik Mohammed. While so, there is a dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondents 3 and 4. Therefore, the 4th Respondent has lodged a complaint against the petitioner. Taking advantage of the same, the 2nd Respondent frequently called the Petitioner for enquiry. Already the Petitioner has appeared for enquiry for more than 4 times before the 2nd respondent. However, the 2nd Respondent called the Petitioner frequently for enquiry. Therefore, he sent a representation, but the same has not been considered. Hence this petition. 3.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that based on the complaint of the 4th respondent, they have called the Petitioner for enquiry.

Sheik Mohammed and hand it over to the 4th Respondent. Based on his statement, the complaint lodged by the 4th respondent was closed. Apart from that, they have not harassed the Petitioner without issuing notice. 4.Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for in this petition, this Court, without even issuing notice to the private respondents, is inclined to pass orders.

5.According to the Petitioner, the 2nd Respondent has harassed him under the guise of enquiry. But the 2nd Respondent has denied the allegations and stated that based on the complaint given by the 4th Respondent, they have called the Petitioner only for enquiry and after enquiry, the complaint lodged by the 4th respondent was closed. 6.Recording the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this petition stands closed.

04.04.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No PNM 3/5

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

2. The Inspector of Police, Karungal Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

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

4/5

P. DHANABAL, J.

PNM ORDER IN 04.04.2025 5/5