Babu 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.6907 of 2025 Babu ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.

3. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam North Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

4. Sriram ... 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 his family on the guise of enquiry in a money dispute by considering the petitioner's representation dated 03.04.2025 within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

Page No. 1 of 5

For Petitioner : Mr. V.Vishnu For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

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 his family on the guise of enquiry for the money dispute by considering the petitioner's representation dated 03.04.2025.

2. According to the petitioner, there is a money dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and thereby, the 4th respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner. Taking advantage of the same, the 3rd respondent frequently harassing the petitioner by interfering with the money dispute. Therefore, he sent a representation dated 03.04.2025, but the same has not been considered. Hence this petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents no.1 to 3 would submit that already the 4th respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner and thereafter, the same was Page No. 2 of 5

closed after enquiry. Again, the petitioner sent a representation as against the 3rd respondent dated 03.04.2025 to the 1st respondent and the same was forwarded to the 2nd respondent and thereafter, the 2nd respondent called the petitioner for enquiry, but he did not appear and filed this petition. The respondents no.1 to 3 have not harassed the petitioner as alleged in the petition.

4. Considering the prayer sought for in the 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 have harassed the petitioner for the money dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. The respondents no.1 to 3 denied the alleged harassment and based on the complaint lodged by the 4th respondent, they called the petitioner and the said complaint was closed. Thereafter, the petitioner has also lodged a complaint against the 3rd respondent. For enquiry purpose, they called the petitioner for enquiry. Apart from that, they have not harassed the petitioner and only called the petitioner for enquiry based on his complaint. In view of same, this criminal original Page No. 3 of 5

petition is closed.

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

1. The Superintendent of Police, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.

2. The Deputy Sueprintendent of Police, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam North Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

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

Page No. 4 of 5

P.DHANABAL, J.

Mac CRL. OP(MD) No.6907 of 2025 17.04.2025 Page No. 5 of 5