Senthilkumar v. State Of Tamilnadu,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR 1.Senthilkumar 2.Mathivanan ... Petitioners Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
3.The Inspector of Police, The District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar District.
4.IVR Prime Developers (Arakku) Pvt., D.No.30-A, South Phase, 6th Cross Street, Thiru-Vi-Ka-G Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032 5.N.S.Mani 6.Saravanakumar ... Respondents 1/4
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to harass the petitioners under the guise of enquiry based on the complaint given by the sixth respondent. For Petitioners : Mr.M.Raja Ravi Varam For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R6 : Mr.P.Kanni Thevan
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking orders to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to harass the petitioners under the guise of enquiry based on the complaint given by the sixth respondent. 2.When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the official respondents would submit that earlier the petitioners filed similar petition in Crl.O.P. (MD)No.14371 of 2024 and this Court considering the submission made on either side, directed the third respondent to issue written summons to the petitioners as well as the private respondents, conduct enquiry and conclude the same, within two weeks and also directed the third respondent, if cognizable offence is made out and he proposes to register 2/4
any FIR, the petitioners will be given notice of the same so that the petitioners will have breathing time to move the concerned Court for the relief of anticipatory bail.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in pursuance to the directions of this Court, the petitioners appeared before the respondent Police on receipt of written summon, however, without conducting enquiry, the respondents threatened the petitioners to settle the amount and hence, the petitioners filed the present petition. 4.But the fact remains that this Court had issued certain directions to the Police for their compliance. Since this Court has already pass orders in similar petition filed by the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to passed further orders. Hence, this criminal original petition is dismissed reiterating the directions issued in the earlier petition. 27.09.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No gns 3/4
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
gns To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
3.The Inspector of Police, The District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
27.09.2024 4/4