Jothi v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL CRL. OP(MD) No.6690 of 2025 Jothi ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur Sub Division, Madurai District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai District.

4. Pandiselvi ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to direct the respondents no.1 to 3 not to harass the petitioner and her family members except under due process of law.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Prithiviraj For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) Page No. 1 of 4

O R D E R

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents no.1 to 3 not to harass the petitioner and her family members.

2. According to the petitioner, there is a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner's son and the 4th respondent and already H.M.O.P.No.38 of 2025 on the file of the Sub Court, Melur is also pending between the petitioner's son and the 4th respondent. While so, the 4th respondent lodged a false complaint as against the petitioner and others. Therefore, the 2nd respondent called the petitioner frequently for enquiry by interfering with the matrimonial dispute and thereby, the petitioner sent a representation dated 02.04.2025, but the same has not been considered. Hence this petition.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents no.1 to 3 would submit that the 4th respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner and others and thereby, they assigned C.S.R.No. 396 of 2025. For enquiry purpose, they called the petitioner. Apart from that, they have not harassed the petitioner as alleged in the petition.

Page No. 2 of 4

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

5. According to the petitioner, the respondents no.1 to 3 harassed the petitioner under the guise of enquiry by interfering in the matrimonial dispute. The 3rd respondent denied the alleged harassment and based on the complaint lodged by the 4th respondent as against the petitioner, they called the petitioner for enquiry. Apart from that, they have not harassed the petitioner. Therefore, recording the above submission of the learned Government Advocate that the 3rd respondent has not harassed the petitioner and only called the petitioner for enquiry, this criminal original petition is closed by directing the 3rd respondent to conduct enquiry and dispose of the complaint of the 4th respondent within a period of one week from the date of this order.

09.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Mac Page No. 3 of 4

P.DHANABAL, J.

Mac To

1. The Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur Sub Division, Madurai District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai District.

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

CRL. OP(MD) No.6690 of 2025 09.04.2025 Page No. 4 of 4