S.Albert v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.04.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL S.Albert ... Petitioner Vs

1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

2. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Ambathurai Police Station, Dindigul.

3. V.A.Basker ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Manimaran For Respondents: Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar (R1-R2) Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner.

1/4

2.According to the petitioner, he is the tenant under the 3rd respondent. There is a tenancy dispute between them. Earlier based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, a case in Cr.No.91 of 2025 has been registered against the 3rd respondent. The petitioner has filed a suit against the 3rd respondent and the same is pending. During the pendency of the suit, the 2nd respondent insisted the petitioner to hand over the possession of the building to the 3rd respondent. Therefore, he sent a representation before the respondent police and the same has not been considered. Hence, this petition.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that based on the complaint of the petitioner, a case in Cr.No.91 of 2025 has been registered against the 3rd respondent and the same is pending for investigation. Thereafter, again the petitioner has sent a representation and the same is pending for enquiry. Apart from that they have not harassed the petitioner. 4.Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for in this petition, this Court, without even issuing notice to the private respondent, is inclined to pass orders.

2/4

5.According to the petitioner, the respondent police has insisted the petitioner to hand over the possession of building to the 3rd respondent. The said allegations was denied by the 2nd respondent stating that they have not harassed the petitioner. 6.Recording the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) this petition is closed.

16.04.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No PNM To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Ambathurai Police Station, Dindigul.

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

3/4

P. DHANABAL, J.

PNM ORDER IN 16.04.2025 4/4