S.Muthupandeeswari v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL CRL. OP(MD) No.6383 of 2025 S.Muthupandeeswari ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.
2. The Inspector of Police, E1, K.Pudur Police Station, Madurai.
3. S. Murugan
4. Somu ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to not to harass the petitioner based upon the false complaint lodged by the 3rd and 4th respondents under the guise of conducting enquiries and interfering in the matrimonial dispute between the parties.
Page No. 1 of 5
For Petitioner : Mr.T. Naveen Sundar For R1 and R2 : Mr.M. Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate
O R D E R
This petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents no.1 and 2 to not to harass the petitioner based upon the false complaint lodged by the respondents no.3 and 4 under the guise of conducting enquiry and interfering in the matrimonial dispute between the parties.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the 3rd respondent is the husband of the petitioner and the 4th respondent is the father-in-law. There is a family dispute pending between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and thereby, the respondents no.3 and 4 lodged a false complaint against the petitioner and already two times, they lodged false complaints and the same were closed after enquiry. However, they used to lodge false complaint frequently and now taking advantage of the same, the respondent police started to harass the petitioner by calling upon the petitioner to appear for enquiry by interfering with the family dispute. Therefore, she has filed this petition. Page No. 2 of 5
3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents no.1 and 2 would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the 4th respondent against the petitioner, they called the petitioner for enquiry. Apart from that, they have not harassed the petitioner as alleged in the petition. However, the complaint of the 4th respondent is still pending and they will conduct enquiry and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
4. Considering the prayer sought for in this petition, this Court even without issuing notice to the respondents no.3 and 4 inclined to pass orders in this petition.
5. According to the petitioner, the respondents no.1 and 2 have harassed the petitioner, but the respondents no.1 and 2 stoutly denied the same. Only based on the complaint lodged by the 4th respondent, they called the petitioner for enquiry. Therefore, recording the above said submission of the learned Government Advocate that the 2nd respondent police has not harassed the petitioner, this criminal original petition is closed with a direction to the 2nd respondent to conduct enquiry on the Page No. 3 of 5
complaint of the 4th respondent and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of fifteen days [15] from the date of this order. 07.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Mac To
1. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.
2. The Inspector of Police, E1, K.Pudur Police Station, Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Page No. 4 of 5
P.DHANABAL, J.
Mac CRL. OP(MD) No.6383 of 2025 07.04.2025 Page No. 5 of 5