Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/15993/2021disposed of

Maya Kannan v. The Inspector Of Police

2021-10-22Honourable Mr Justice G.Ilangovan2 pages

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15993 of 2021 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.10.2021 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15993 of 2021 Maya Kannan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, Sivagangai District.

2.Subbu 3.Kumar 4.Kannan ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the 1st respondent that not to harass the petitioner and his family members in the guise of enquiry based on the complaint of the 4th respondent and not to interfere into the civil dispute, in respect of the land, to an extent of 2.27 cents, situating in Town Survey No.167 part, in Ward No.2, Meenakshipuram, Kazhani Vasal Puravu, Karikudi Town, Sivagangai District.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik For Respondent-1 : Mr.R.M.S.Sethuraman Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking direction to the 1st respondent that not to harass the petitioner and his family members in the guise of enquiry based on the complaint of the 4th respondent and not to interfere into the civil dispute.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in respect of the property dispute arose between him and the private respondents. Originally, it was assigned in favour of the mother of the petitioner. She executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner and he is in possession from then. The private respondents have no right over the property.

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the private respondents gave a complaint against the father of petitioner and not against this petitioner. During the course of enquiry, finding that there was a civil dispute and since there is apprehension of breach of peace 107 Cr.P.C. Proceedings have been recommended by the first respondent herein to the Revenue Divisional https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15993 of 2021 Officer, Devakottai.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer, he pressurised the petitioner to yield to the demand made by the private respondents.

5.Since the recommendation has been made by the first respondent herein, the petitioner and his father has to workout his remedy before the concerned authority as per law. So the harassment at the hands of the first respondent may not exists. Hence, the prayer sought for in this petition has become infructuous. 6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is disposed of as infructuous.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) 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.

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, Sivagangai District.

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

+1 CC to M/s.M.S.JEYAKARTHIK, Advocate ( SR-32266[F] dated 22/10/2021 ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15993 of 2021 22.10.2021 TP(CO) KB(17.11.2021) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2