Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/11076/2019disposed of

Veeralakshmi v. The Inspector Of Police

2019-08-06Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan2 pages

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11076 of 2019 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.08.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11076 of 2019 Veeralakshmi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, Emaneswaram Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

2.Tamil Arasi

...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the first respondent not to harass the petitioner and her family members in the guise of enquiry. For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik For R1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent not to harass the petitioner and her family members under the guise of enquiry.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent. Considering the nature of the order going to be passed in this petition, notice to the second respondent is dispensed with.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is a money dispute pending between the petitioner and one Vasuki. Now that Vasuki said to have handed over the promissory note executed by the petitioner in her favour to the second respondent herein. Based on the same, the second respondent had filed a complaint before the first respondent seeking recovery of the money. Based on the said complaint, the first respondent is harassing the petitioner directing the petitioner to repay the sum. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11076 of 2019

4. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner said to have borrowed money from one Vasuki and executed a promissory note to that effect. Earlier a complaint has been lodged by Vasuki against the petitioner stating that the petitioner, whiling borrowing the amount, promised to repay the amount within a period of six months and she failed to do so. Now the said promissory note is said to have been handed over to the second respondent. and the second respondent has given another complaint against the petitioner. Based on the same, enquiry has been conducted by the first respondent. He would further submit that the respondent police has not harassed the petitioner.

5. From perusal of the records, it could be seen it is a money dispute pending between the parties. In a civil dispute, the police has no role to play, it is only the civil Court to decide these issues. But in the present case, the respondent police is unnecessarily interfering in the civil dispute and harassing the petitioner to repay the amount borrowed by her. In the above circumstances, the first respondent is directed not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry

6. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, Emaneswaram Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

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

+1 CC to M/s.M.S.JEYAKARTHIK, Advocate ( SR-80053[F] dated 06/08/2019 ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11076 of 2019 06.08.2019 ta JM/22.08.2019/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2