Pandianusiya v. The Commisisoner Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE : 17.08.2021

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Pandianusiya ... Petitioner Vs.

1.State rep by The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

3.The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Madurai City.

4.The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Town Police Station, Madurai District.

5.The Sub Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Police Station, Madurai District.

6.K.Sivapriya 7.Kasimayan ... Respondents Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the 3rd and 4th respondents not to harass the petitioner and her family members.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.N.Guru For R1 to R5 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This petition is filed seeking a direction to direct the the respondents 3 & 4 not to harass the petitioner and her family members.

1/3

2. When the matter taken up for hearing on 26.07.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on earlier occasion, she moved Crl.OP(MD)No.8294 of 2021 seeking relief not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry and it was closed, on the basis of the statement given by the learned Public Prosecutor to the effect that the petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. Later, a case has been registered against her. Even after registering the case, she was also called from the Thirumangalam Police Station, Madurai, to attend enquiry, on the very same set of facts.

3.But, however, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the complaints, which have been given against the petitioner, have been transferred to the City Crime Branch, Madurai, and now, the City Crime Branch, Madurai, has undertaken the matter. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though, the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the enquiry, with an intention to harassing, she was called by one station and other station for enquiry or investigation, which is made on the very same set of facts.

5.However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that no complaint is pending against the petitioner in Thirumangalam Police Station, Madurai. It was also closed. 6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Jaihindpuram Police Station, Madurai, also calling her to attend enquiry.

7. But, however, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that a complaint given by the defacto complainant, before the Jaihindpuram Police Station, Madurai, is pending and no other complaint is pending against her.

8. What ever it may be, it appears that the entire investigation has been taken by the City Crime Branch, Madurai. Undertaking is also given by the petitioner that she is ready to appear before the Enquiry Officer and co-operate with him to complete the enquiry. So, the question of harassing does not arise. 9.In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar () // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) dss 2/3

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

3.The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Madurai City.

4.The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Town Police Station, Madurai District.

5.The Sub Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Police Station, Madurai District.

6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 17.08.2021 RK (13.09.2021) 3P 7C 3/3