T.Lawrance v. The Superintendent Of Police

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11033 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.11033 of 2019 T.Lawrence ... Petitioner/Aggrieved Person Vs.

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

2.The Inspector of Police, Anti -Land Grabbing Special Cell, Tirunelveli District.

3.A.Jayaraj

...Respondents/Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, Tirunelveli District not to interfere into the civil subject matter in connection with the properties which are covered by a civil suit in O.S.No.80 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned District Judge, Tirunelveli.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Gunasekaran For R1 and R2 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R3 : Mr.Palani Velayutham

ORDER

This petition has been filed to direct the second respondent not to interfere into the civil subject matter.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that civil dispute is pending between the petitioner and the third respondent and the suit filed by the petitioner is also pending before the competent civil Court. Now pending suit, the third respondent has given a complaint alleging that the petitioner has filed the suit by forging the sale agreement. Based on the said complaint, the second respondent police is harassing the petitioner under the guise of enquiry. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/4

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11033 of 2019 Hence, the present petition has been filed.

3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the official respondents, on instructions, would submit that the third respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging that he has forged the sale agreement and filed a suit for specific performance. Based on the complaint the second respondent has conducted enquiry and the enquiry reveals that it is only a civil dispute, the second respondent has closed the complaint directing the parties to approach the civil Court for appropriate remedy.

4. The submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) is recorded. Considering the fact that the complaint lodged by the third respondent has already been enquired into and closed by the respondent police, no further adjudication needs to be entertained in the present petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

2.The Inspector of Police, Anti -Land Grabbing Special Cell, Tirunelveli District.

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

+1 cc Mr. S.PALANIVELAYUTHAM ,Advocate, SR.No. 80199 +1 cc Mr.R.ANAND ,Advocate, SR.No. 80131 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11033 of 2019 KK/SAR/20.08.2019/2P-6C/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/4