M. Manikandan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.07.2025 CORAM :

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI M.Manikandan ... Petitioner (s) Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Musiri, Tiruchirappalli District.

3.The Inspector Police, Thathangaiyarpettai Police Station, Musiri Sub Division, Tiruchirappalli District.

4.T.Manivannan ... Respondents Prayer: This petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS 2023, to issue a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 not to harass the petitioner and consequently directing them not to interfere with the civil dispute in the guise of enquiry.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottaichamy, Nos.1 to 3 Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/5

ORDER

The petitioner has approached this Court that the respondent police are harassing the petitioner in the civil dispute. 2.The learned Government Advocate (Crl Side) appearing for the respondent police submits that based on the complaint of the 4th respondent to the DIG, an enquiry in current paper No.G3/1552/372/2025 was conducted and closed on 05.07.2025 as money dispute.

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the orders of this Court passed in CrlOP(MD)Nos.17078 of 2022 and 12903 and 12906 of 2024 submits that the respondent police have been harassing the petitioner on the complaint of 4th respondent. The petitioner has earlier filed the above petitions before this Court and this Court has by recording that it is a civil dispute, quashed the summons. Even thereafter the respondent police have entertained the complaint from the 4th respondent and is harassing the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this 3rd such complaint is entertained by the respondent police.

2/5

4.This Court considered the rival submissions made. 5.It appears there is a money dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, for which the 4th respondent is using the respondent police to get back his money.

6.According to the learned Government Advocate, the complaint of the 4th respondent has been forwarded from the DIG office and therefore they have conducted current paper enquiry. 7.There is no process called current paper enquiry and such types of enquiries have to be deprecated by the respondent police. It is open to the petitioner to take appropriate action as against the 4th respondent for using the police as an instrument to harass the petitioner in the money dispute.

8.Recording the aforesaid submission of the learned Government Advocate, this criminal original petition is closed. 15.07.2025 DSK 3/5

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Musiri, Tiruchirappalli District.

3.The Inspector Police, Thathangaiyarpettai Police Station, Musiri Sub Division, Tiruchirappalli District.

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

4/5

B.PUGALENDHI,J DSK 15.07.2025 5/5