Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/11242/2018dismissed

Annamalai v. The Superintendent Of Police

2018-07-05Honourable Mr Justice D. Krishnakumar2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.07.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR Crl.O.P.(MD).No.11242 of 2018 Annamalai .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Vikramangalam Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.Not known) 3.Aadhi Narayanan, Sub Inspector of Police, Vikramangalam Police Station, Madurai District.

.. Respondents 1 to 3

4. R.Sonaimuthu .. 4th Respondent / Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 2nd respondent and particularly 3rd respondent not to harass the petitioner in the guise of enquiry based on the complaint given by the 4th respondent (Crime No.Not known) and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondent not to interfere in the civil dispute existing between the petitioner and the 4th respondent in respect of the V.Nariyanpatti Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District.

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.K.Suyambulingabharathi Government Advocate (Criminal side)

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent and particularly 3rd respondent not to harass the petitioner in the guise of enquiry based on the complaint given by the 4th respondent (Crime No.Not known) and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondent not to interfere in the civil dispute existing between the petitioner and the 4th respondent in respect of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

V.Nariyanpatti Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd and 3rd respondents frequently called the petitioner and harassed him under the guise of enquiry with regard to a civil dispute.

4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) on instructions, would submit that both the parties have appeared for enquiry and since the dispute between the parties is purely family dispute, both of them stated that they would work out their remedy through Civil Court and hence, the said complaint was closed. He also produced a copy of the closure report before this Court. Hence, the allegation of harassment made against the respondents 2 and 3 is incorrect and the same is denied.

5. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Vikramangalam Police Station, Madurai District.

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

4.The Sub Inspector of Police, Vikramangalam Police Station, Madurai District.

+ 1 CC TO Mr.T.ANTONY ARUL RAJ, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 71352 PJL TE/PN/SAR-3 : 17/07/2018 : 2P/6C Crl.O.P(MD)No.11242 of 2018 05.07.2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/