Manjula v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :09.04.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6581 of 2025 1.Manjula 2.Shyam Maria Vivek ... Petitioners Vs.

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

2.The Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District.

3.Santhi 4.Ramachandran

...Respondents

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioners and their family members and further restrain the second respondent not to interfere the civil dispute between the petitioners and the third respondent.

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Manikandan For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor (crl.side) 1/5

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners to direct the second respondent not to harass them and their family members and further, restrain the second respondent not to interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioners and the third respondent.

2. According to the petitioners, there is a money dispute pending between the petitioners and the third respondent and thereby, the third respondent lodged a false complaint against the petitioners, based on the same, the second respondent frequently, called the petitioners under the guise of enquiry and interfered with the money dispute. Therefore, they sent a representation on 01.04.2025 and the same has not been considered. Therefore, the present petition.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, submits that based on the complaint lodged by the third respondent, they called the petitioners for enquiry, apart from that they have not harassed the petitioners. He further submits that they will conduct enquiry on the third respondent's complaint along with the petitioner's representation and dispose of the same within a week.

2/5

4. Considering the prayer sought for in this petition, this Court, without issuing notice to the respondents 3 and 4, is inclined to pass order.

5. According to the petitioners, the second respondent is harassing them by interfering with the money dispute pending between them and the third respondent. The second respondent denied the alleged allegation and submits that based on the complaint given by the third respondent, they called the petitioners for enquiry and also, assures to complete the enquiry and dispose of the same within a week. Therefore, recording the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (crl.side), this Court directs the second respondent to conduct enquiry on the third respondent's complaint along with the petitioner's representation dated 01.04.2025 and dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the matter pertains to money dispute, the second respondent has to follow the circular issued by the Additional Director General of Police in C.No.18/ADGP/L&O/Camp/2024, dated 09.01.2024, in this regard.

3/5

6. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

09.04.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Rmk To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

4/5

P. DHANABAL , J.

Rmk Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6581 of 2025 09.04.2025 5/5