Priya v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.10.2021

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.OP(MD)No.12934 of 2021 Priya ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station, Karur District.

3.Arunprasath 4.Ananth ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the second respondent not to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 3 & 4.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mathiyalagan For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This petition is filed seeking direction to direct the second respondent not to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 3 & 4.

2.When the matter was taken up for hearing, on 06.09.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he borrowed loan amount from the third parties and for the purpose of repaying the same, he sold the property to the respondents 3 & 4. The market value of the above said property is Rs.35 lakhs. But, the private respondents fixed total sale consideration at Rs.20 lakhs. They also paid Rs.15.50 lakhs and Rs.4.50 lakhs has to be paid, even though, the petitioner is in possession of the property.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the complaint given by the private respondents, the second respondent threatened the petitioner to vacate the house immediately.

1/3

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that based upon the complaint given by the private respondents, enquiry is pending.

5. It has been observed by this Court that it is purely a civil dispute. But, however, allegation that has been made by the private respondents is that the petitioner threatened and abused them in filthy language. For the purpose of intimating the outcome of the enquiry, the matter was listed today.

6. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has circulated a copy of the Closure Report. Wherein, it has been stated that on the basis of the complaint, enquiry was undertaken and both the parties did not appear before the Enquiry Officer at the same time, but, appeared different time. So, the enquiry was pending. Later, in spite of repeated summons, both the parties did not appear before the Enquiry Officer and co-operate with him to complete the enquiry. So, further action was dropped.

7.Since further action was dropped, on the basis of the non appearance of the parties, the question of harassment may not arise.

8.Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed as infructuous.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-I) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) dss 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 Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur.

2/3

2.The Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station, Karur District.

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

Crl.OP(MD)No.12934 of 2021 07.10.2021 RK/JGB (02/11/2021) 3P 4C 3/3