Mustafa v. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Mustafa ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ramanathapuram Zone, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Thondi Police Station, Thondi, Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Kenikarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
6.Pandi ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the respondent police 3 to 5 not to interfere in the civil dispute and not to harass the petitioner and his family members under the guise of enquiry on the basis of petitioner's representation, dated 17.09.2021. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthukumar For Respondents : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl. side) 1/3
ORDER
(This petition is heard through video conference) This petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent police 3 to 5 not to interfere in the civil dispute and not to harass the petitioner and his family members under the guise of enquiry on the basis of petitioner's representation, dated 17.09.2021.
2.When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that based upon the complaint given by the 6th respondent herein, enquiry was undertaken in C.No.G3/025612/2106/2021 and summon has been ordered to the petitioner. But he did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. 3.Reading of the complaint shows that there was a sale agreement between the petitioner and the 6th respondent herein. Against the terms of the sale agreement, it is alleged that this petitioner sold the property to some other person. It appears that it is a sale transaction between the petitioner and the 6th respondent herein, in which, the fifth respondent may not have any role to play.
4.The another grievance of the petitioner is that even though earlier complaint given by the 6th respondent was closed by the third respondent, another complaint has been given to fourth respondent and another to fifth respondent and continuously 6th respondent is indulging in giving continuous repeated complaints. 5.Since it appears that there is a sale transaction between the petitioner and the 6th respondent herein, the 4th respondent herein may advice the 6th respondent to work out his remedy through proper civil proceedings. The petitioner may also appear before the 4th respondent herein and give a statement to setting out the facts and circumstances. On recording the statement, the 4th respondent may close the enquiry advising the parties to work out the remedy through appropriate civil proceedings.
6.With the above directions, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CSII) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar TM 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.
2/3
To 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ramanathapuram Zone, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Thondi Police Station, Thondi, Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Kenikarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC toM/s.S.MUTHUKUMAR, Advocate (SR-30219[F] dated 24/09/2021 ) CRL OP(MD).No.14089 of 2021 22.09.2021 PKP/3P/8C 3/3