V.Mariyappan v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL V.Mariyappan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli.

2. Aji Kumar, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Town Range, Tirunelveli City.

3. Shamili ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to direct the 2nd respondent not to indulge in Kattapanchayat under the guise of enquiry on the basis of the complaint lodged by the 3rd respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Leninkumar For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) Page No. 1 of 5

O R D E R

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the 2nd respondent not to indulge in Kattapanchayat under the guise of enquiry on the basis of the complaint lodged by the 3rd respondent.

2. According to the petitioner, on 24.02.2025, the 3rd respondent leased out her house comprised in Survey No.157/1, situated at Pettai, Tirunelveli after receiving the lease amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and they also entered into an agreement dated 24.02.2025 to that regard. As per the agreement, the lease period is three years from 24.02.2025 to 23.02.2028. While so, on 25.02.2025, one Karuppammal, who is the mother of the 3rd respondent along two persons came to the petitioner's house and abused the petitioner for entering into the above said agreement and threatened with dire consequences. Therefore, there is a dispute in respect of the above said leasing of the property and thereby, F.I.R has been registered as against the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent. While so, the 2nd respondent without any valid reasons frequently called the petitioner and threatened the petitioner to pay the lease amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the Page No. 2 of 5

3rd respondent. Therefore, he sent a representation dated 31.03.2025, but the same has not been considered. Hence this petition.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents no.1 and 2 would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the 3rd respondent, they called the petitioner for enquiry. Apart from that, they have not harassed the petitioner and they have not indulged in any kattapanchayat as alleged in the petition. Only for the investigation purpose, they called the petitioner.

4. Considering the prayer sought for in the petition, this Court without even issuing notice to the 3rd respondent inclined to pass orders in this petition.

5. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent frequently called the petitioner and indulged in kattapanchayat and the same was stoutly denied by the 2nd respondent and only based on the complaint lodged by the 3rd respondent, for enquiry purpose they called the petitioner. Therefore, recording the submission of the learned Government Advocate that the 2nd respondent has not harassed the petitioner and only called the Page No. 3 of 5

petitioner for enquiry purpose, this criminal original petition is closed. 08.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Mac To

1. The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli.

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

Page No. 4 of 5

P.DHANABAL, J.

Mac CRL. OP(MD) No.6481 of 2025 08.04.2025 Page No. 5 of 5