← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/6781/2025disposed of

P.Parvathinathan v. The State Of Tamilnadu

2025-04-15Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL CRL. OP(MD) No.6781 of 2025 P.Parvathinathan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

2. The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Taluk Police Station, Tirunelveli.

3. S.Anthonidurai

4. S.Venkadachalam ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to direct the 2nd respondent not to interfering the civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4.

Page No. 1 of 5

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jegadeesha Pandian For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the 2nd respondent not to interfere the civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents no. 3 and 4.

2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the property in old Survey No.84/1b and New Survey No.189 of 2016, Avinnaperi Village, Palyamkottai Taluk. While so, the respondents no.3 and 4 causing trouble to the petitioner and thereby, the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.176 of 2025 against the 3rd respondent and one Shanmugam and the same is pending. Thereafter, the respondents no.3 and 4 lodged a false complaint against the petitioner for the civil dispute and thereby, the 2nd respondent frequently called the petitioner and insisted the petitioner to handed over the possession of the property to the respondents no. 3 and 4 by interfering with the civil dispute. Therefore, he sent a representation dated 05.04.2025 and the same has not been considered. Hence this petition. Page No. 2 of 5

3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents no.1 and 2 would submit that the respondents no.3 and 4 and another person, namely, Udhayakumar have lodged separate complaint against the petitioner in respect of encroachment of the property and thereby, the respondent police called the petitioner for enquiry. Apart from that, they have not harassed the petitioner. However, they will conduct enquiry on the complaint lodged by the respondents no.3 to 4 within fifteen days.

4. Considering the prayer sought for in the petition, this Court even without issuing notice to the respondents no.3 and 4 inclined to pass orders in this petition.

5. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent by interfering with the civil dispute harassing the petitioner, but the 2nd respondent denied the alleged harassment and based on the complaint lodged by the respondents no.3 and 4, they called the petitioner for enquiry. Therefore, recording the above said submission of the 2nd respondent, this Court directs the 2nd respondent to dispose of the complaint of the respondents no.3 and 4 within a period of fifteen days from the date of this order. If Page No. 3 of 5

the matter is pertaining to civil dispute, then the 2nd respondent has to follow the circular issued by the higher authorities in this regard.

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

15.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Mac To

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

2. The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Taluk Police Station, Tirunelveli.

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

Page No. 4 of 5

P.DHANABAL, J.

Mac CRL. OP(MD) No.6781 of 2025 15.04.2025 Page No. 5 of 5