Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/20956/2022closed

Muthuraman v. The Superintendent Of Police

2022-11-28Honourable Mr Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.11.2022 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Crl.O.P(MD).No.20956 of 2022 Muthuraman, : Petitioner Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.

2. The Additional Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District.

3. V.Srinivasa Ragavan, : Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying, to issue a direction, directing the 2nd Respondent police not to harass the petitioner on the guise of enquiry on the basis of the complaint lodged by the 3rd Respondent.

For Petitioner : Mrs.P.Vimala Devi For R1 and R2 : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/4

O R D E R

This criminal original petition had been filed seeking a direction to the second Respondent police not to harass the petitioner on the guise of enquiry on the basis of the complaint lodged by the third Respondent. 2.The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that for the transaction, which had been taken place in the year 2013, the third Respondent had filed a complaint before the second Respondent only in the year 2022. 3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that earlier, a petition in Crl.O.P(MD)No.16181 of 2022, was filed by the Petitioner seeking the very same direction, which was closed on 14.11.2022 that the complaint had been transferred to the file of the District Crime Branch, Madurai. Now, the Petitioner had filed this petition seeking direction against the Respondent police. Further, he submits that now the complaint is pending with the District Crime Branch, Madurai, as current paper.

4.Considering the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), the Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to act as per the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government 2/4

of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2013 (6) CTC 353 as well as in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in [2014 (8) SCC 273] and further, the Respondents 1 and 2 are directed not to summon the Petitioner at odd hours. The Petitioner is directed to co-operate with the pending enquiry. 5.With the above directions, this criminal original petition is closed. 28.11.2022 Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No lr To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.

2. The Additional Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District.

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

3/4

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

lr 28.11.2022 4/4