P.Sennammal v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By 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.6630 of 2025 P.Sennammal ... Petitioner Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu rep., by the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station-II, Virudhunagar District.

3.Bankaj Bothra

...Respondents

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner and her family members under the guise of enquiry. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Sekar for M/s.Raja Jeya Chandra Paul.S For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor (crl.side) 1/5

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner and her family members under the guise of enquiry.

2. According to the petitioner, there is a dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent in respect of property situated in S.F.No. 1340/1 at Keelathiruthangal, Virudhunagar District and the petitioner has got decree in O.S.No.1 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi. However, the third respondent lodged a false complaint against the petitioner, based on the same, the second respondent used to harass the petitioner. The petitioner has already appeared before the second respondent and produced all the documents, inspite of that the respondent police called the petitioner frequently. Therefore, she sent a representation on 01.04.2025 and the same has not been considered. Hence, this petitioner.

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, the second respondent called the petitioner through summon. Both parties appeared and the petitioner sought 2/5

time to produce the document. Thereafter, the petitioner has not produced the document and filed this petition. He further submits that they have not harassed the petitioner and the petitioner was called only for enquiry purpose by way of summon. However, the complaint of the third respondent is pending under enquiry and they will conduct enquiry along with the representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

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

5. According to the petitioner, the third respondent lodged a false complaint against the petitioner, based on the same, the second respondent is insisting the petitioner to execute deed in favour of the third respondent. According to the respondents, the subject property belonged to the third respondent and without knowledge of the third respondent, the petitioner obtained decree and hence, the third respondent lodged a complaint and the same is under enquiry. Therefore, it is for the second respondent to conduct the enquiry and dispose of the same. In view of the same, this Court directs the second respondent to conduct enquiry on the representation of the 3/5

petitioner along with the complaint of the third respondent and dispose of the same, within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law.

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, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station-II, Virudhunagar District.

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

4/5

P. DHANABAL , J.

Rmk Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6630 of 2025 09.04.2025 5/5