Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/6579/2025disposed of

Pulliyappan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

2025-04-09Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal5 pages

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.6579 of 2025 Pulliyappan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu rep., by its the Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram DIStrict.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kamuthi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

3.Abdul Rehman

...Respondents

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to direct the second respondent police not to interfere the civil cum title dispute, on the basis of the memorandum issued by the Additional Director General of Police (L&O) Office, Chennai in vide C.No.18/ADGP/L&O/Camp/2024 dated 09.01.2024. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Udhayakumar For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor (crl.side) 1/5

For R3 : Mr.S.Ramsundar Vijayaraj

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner to direct the second respondent police not to interfere with the civil-cum-title dispute, based on the memorandum issued by the Additional Director General of Police (L&O) Office, Chennai, vide C.No.18/ADGP/L&O/Camp/2024, dated 09.01.2024.

2. According to the petitioner, there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent, for which, the third respondent lodged a false complaint against the petitioner, based on the same, the second respondent frequently called the petitioner by interfering with the civil dispute. Therefore, he sent a representation on 01.04.2025 to the first respondent, but the same has not been considered. Hence, this 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 petitioner for enquiry and thereafter, they registered a case in Crime No.76 of 2025. Therefore, only for enquiry purpose, they called the petitioner, apart from that they have not harassed the petitioner.

2/5

4. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that since the petitioner created forged document and cheated the third respondent, thereby he lodged a complaint against the petitioner, based on the same, the respondent-police have registered a case against the petitioner.

5. Considering the prayer sought for in this petition and also, considering the fact that the respondent-police have registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.76 of 2025 and only for enquiry purpose, they called the petitioner, otherwise they have not harassed the petitioner, recording the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the FIR in Crime No.76 of 2025 in the manner known to law, if he is aggrieved by the same. 09.04.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Rmk 3/5

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram DIStrict.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kamuthi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

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

4/5

P. DHANABAL , J.

Rmk Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6579 of 2025 09.04.2025 5/5