C.Bairava Sundaram v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL CRL. OP(MD) No.6949 of 2025

1. C.Bairava Sundaram

2. M.Saravanan

3. M.Subramanian

4. Chellam ... Petitioners Vs.

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

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch - II, Sivagangai District.

3. R.Sivakumar ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to direct the respondent police not to interfere into the civil dispute and not to harass the petitioners in the guise of enquiry and threatening them. Page No. 1 of 5

For Petitioners : Mr. A.B.Jeeva For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

This petition has been filed by the petitioners to direct the respondent police not to interfere into the civil dispute and not to harass the petitioners in under the guise of enquiry.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that there is a property dispute between the petitioners, the 3rd respondent and one Parthasarathy and the 3rd respondent is the power agent of the said Parthasarathy. Already the said Parthasarathy had executed a power of attorney deed to the 1st petitioner and based on the same, he executed sale deed to various persons. Now, the 3rd respondent lodged a false complaint against the petitioners and based on the same, the 2nd respondent frequently called the petitioners by interfering with the civil dispute. Therefore, the petitioners sent a representation dated 07.04.2025, but the same has not been considered. Hence this petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for Page No. 2 of 5

the respondents no.1 and 2 would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the 3rd respondent for the forging of documents, they called the petitioners for enquiry and the petitioners have also appeared for enquiry. However, they will conduct enquiry and take appropriate action in accordance with law within fifteen days.

4. Considering the prayer sought for in the petition, this Court even without issuing notice to the 3rd respondent inclined to pass orders in this petition.

5. According to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent harassed the petitioners by interfering with the civil dispute. But, the 2nd respondent denied the same and according to him, based on the complaint lodged by the 3rd respondent, they called the petitioners for enquiry and the petitioners have also appeared for enquiry and thereafter, they sough time and now filed this petition. Therefore, recording the above said submissions of the 2nd respondent that they have not harassed the petitioners, only based on the complaint lodged by the 3rd respondent, they called the petitioners for enquiry, this Court directs the 2nd respondent to dispose of the 3rd respondent complaint in accordance with law within a Page No. 3 of 5

period of fifteen days from the date of this order.

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

17.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Mac To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District.

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch - II, Sivagangai District.

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.6949 of 2025 17.04.2025 Page No. 5 of 5