G. Suganthi v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.11.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20466 of 2018 G.Suganthi : Petitioner Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruchy District.

2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Lalgudi Police Station, Tiruchy District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Lalgudi Police Station, Tiruchy District.

: Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the 1 to 3 respondents herein not to harass the petitioner in the name of enquiry without due process of law. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Venkatesan For Respondents : Mr.R.Anandharaj Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 not to harass the petitioner in the name of enquiry without due process of law.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Munmudisola Mangalam School situated at Lalkudi. He would further submit that the petitioner is known to one Shanmugam, who was working as Assistant Education Officer and retired from service. During his employment as Assistant Education Officer, he has abused his official capacity and misbehaved with the petitioner and also threatened to do illegal things with her. But the petitioner refused the same. Therefore, he harassed her by way of giving false complaint to the Department.

3.The learned counsel would further submit that after his retirement, in order to harass the petitioner, he has given complaint and based on the same, the second respondent without any authority harassing the petitioner, under the guise of enquiry. Thereby the petitioner filed this petition seeking for a direction to the respondent Police not to harass the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that on a complaint given by one Shanmugam, the second respondent called the petitioner for enquiry. As per the complaint, the said Shanmugam and the petitioner were living as husband and wife and during that period the said Shanumugam had given money and jewels to her and that she had refused to return the same. Thereby a complaint has been given. He would further submit that based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the respondent enquired the case whereas the petitioner has given reply by way of letter. He would submit that the respondent Police has closed the enquiry based on the written statement made by the petitioner.

5.Recording the same, this Criminal Original Petition stands closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruchy District.

2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Lalgudi Police Station, Tiruchy District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Lalgudi Police Station, Tiruchy District.

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

+1cc to Mr.P.Venkatesan ,Advocate Sr.No.96240 GNS KM/SKN/SAR4/06.12.2018/2P/6C Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20466 of 2018 19.11.2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/