Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/12643/2020allowed

V.Udhayakumar v. The Superintendent Of Police

2020-11-10Honourable Mrs Justice J. Nisha Banu2 pages

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12643 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.11.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12643 of 2020 V. Udhayakumar ... Petitioner vs.

1. The Superintendant of Police, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

2. The Deputy Superintendant of Police, District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram,Ramanathapuram District.

3. The Inspector, Anti land grabbing Special Cell, District Police Office,Ramanathapuram.

4. Thirumalai, Deputy Superintendant of Police, District Crime Branch,Ramanathapuram District.

5. Michael Ammal

6. Michael Raj

...Respondents

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 not to harass the petitioner and his family members under guise of enquiry and thereby not to interfere into the civil dispute.

For Petitioner :

Mr.P. Gunasekaran For R-1 to R-4 :

Mr. V. Neelakandan Additional Public Prosecutor For R-6 :

Mr.D.Senthil

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 4 not to harass the petitioner and his family members under guise of enquiry and thereby not to interfere with the civil dispute.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that the petitioner has purchased a property from the 5th respondent herein, by virtue of a registered sale deed, dated 03.06.2014 for valuable consideration.

3.Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12643 of 2020 the respondents 1 to 3 would state that there is no complaint and no case is pending against the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondent 5 and 6 has stated that a complaint has been preferred by the respondent 5 and 6 before the police and the police has summoned the petitioner for enquiry.

4.The sale deed dated 03.06.2014 executed by the 5th respondent in favour of the petitioner has been enclosed in the typed set of papers. If the respondents 5 and 6 have got any grievances in respect of the said sale deed which is said to be executed out of coercion, it is for them to approach the competent civil forum and the police shall not unnecessarily interfere in the civil dispute. Since the respondents/Police themselves have stated that there is no enquiry pending against the petitioner, recording the same, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of directing the respondents/Police not to harass the petitioner and his family members under the guise of enquiry.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) bala/ksa 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.

1. The Superintendant of Police, Ramanathapuram,Ramanathapuram District.

2. The Deputy Superintendant of Police, District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram,Ramanathapuram District.

3. The Inspector,Anti land grabbing Special Cell, District Police Office,Ramanathapuram.

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

ORDER MADE IN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12643 of 2020 DATED : 10.11.2020 SS(CO) AP(23/11/2020) 2 P 5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2