R.S Balaji v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL CRL. O.P(MD) No.7489 of 2025 R.S.Balaji ... Petitioner Vs

1. The the Superintendent of Police, O/o. the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam East Police Station, Thanjavur District.

4. Somu ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 to direct the third respondents and their officials not to interfere in the Civil Dispute/Affairs of the management of the temple on the basis of the Petitioner`s representation dated 24.03.2025.

Page No. 1 of 5

For petitioner :Mr. S.Shanmugam For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) *****

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner to direct the third respondent not to harass the petitioner and not interfered with the civil dispute by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 24.03.2025.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a civil dispute pending between the petitioner and fourth respondent. Thereby, he also filed a suit in O.S.No.38 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam and the same is pending. While so, the fourth respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner. Taking advantage of the same, the third respondent frequently called the petitioner by interfering with the civil dispute. Therefore, he sent a representation dated 24.03.2025, but the same has not been considered. Hence, he filed this petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents Page No. 2 of 5

1 and 2 would submit that there is a civil dispute pending between the petitioner and fourth respondent in respect of the management of a temple thereby, they frequently quarrelled between them and thereby, the third respondent referred the matter to the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar also initiated proceedings under Section 110 of BNSS. While so, the respondents 1 and 2 have not interfered with the civil dispute. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

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

5. According to the petitioner, the third respondent harassed the petitioner by interfering with the civil dispute and the same was denied by the third respondent and based on the complaint lodged by the fourth respondent, they conducted enquiry and the same was forwarded to the Revenue Authorities and the Revenue Authorities also conducted enquiry. Apart from that, they have not harassed the petitioner.

6. Therefore, recording the abovesaid submission of the learned Page No. 3 of 5

Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

24.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd To

1. The the Superintendent of Police, O/o. the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. the Superintendent of Police, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam East Police Station, Thanjavur District.

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

Page No. 4 of 5

P.DHANABAL,J apd Crl.OP(MD) No.7489 of 2025 24.04.2025 Page No. 5 of 5