← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/16342/2024disposed of

Raju v. State Of Tamilnadu,

2024-09-27Honourable Mr Justice K.Murali Shankar5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.09.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR Raju ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

3.The Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

4.Dheivam Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

5.The Inspector of Police, 6.Amutha, Inspector of Police, 7.The Sub Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District.

1/5

8.Arun Narayanan, Sub Inspector of Police, 9.Wilson 10.Simson 11.Johnson ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to direct the respondents 3 to 8 not to interfere in a civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 9 to 11, based on the petitioner's representation, dated 23.09.2024.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For Respondents : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 to R3.

ORDER

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 528 B.N.S.S., seeking orders, to direct the respondents 3 to 8 not to interfere in a civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 9 to 11, based on the petitioner's representation, dated 23.09.2024. 2/5

2.When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, CSR.No. 960 of 2024 came to be registered and on the basis of '100' call made by the tenth respondent, the patrol police went to the spot and the investigation is pending.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner as well as the tenth respondent are joint pattadhars and the petitioner is owning an extent of 1.33 cents and the tenth respondent is owning 1.04 cents in the land in dispute and that at the instance of the private respondents, the official respondents 3 to 8 have been threatening the petitioner to sell the property to the private respondents.

4. Considering the above, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, is directed to consider the petitioner's representation and also the counter complaint given by the tenth respondent and pass orders within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 3/5

5. With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

27.09.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No das To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

3.The Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

4.The Inspector of Police, 5.The Sub Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

4/5

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

DAS Order made in Dated: 27.09.2024 5/5