Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/21037/2022disposed of

J.Kaja Muhaideen v. The Commissioner Of Police

2022-11-29Honourable Mr Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.11.2022 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Crl.O.P(MD).No.21037 of 2022 J.Kaja Muhaideen, : Petitioner Vs

1. The Commissioner of Police, O/o the Commissioner of Police, Madurai.

2. The Inspector of Police, Tallakulam Police Station, Madurai.

: Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying, to direct the Respondent No.2 not to harass the Petitioner in the guise of enquiry, since the Respondent No.2 continuously called upon the Petitioner to their station even there was no criminal case pending against the Petitioner. 1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This criminal original petition had been filed seeking a direction to the Respondent No.2 not to harass the Petitioner in the guise of enquiry, since the Respondent No.2 continuously called upon the Petitioner to their station even there was no criminal case pending against the Petitioner. 2.The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had obtained loan from his father-in-law in respect of a sale agreement. Subsequently, the father-in-law died. In the light of the above sale agreement deed, the Petitioner's mother-in-law, Petitioner's wife and Petitioner's brother-in-law, forced him to evict the property. Accordingly, the Petitioner had given a complaint to the police. The police officials advised them to sort out their dispute in the local Jamath. In the Jamath, the elders advised the Petitioner's-in-laws to hand over the key of the premises to the Petitioner. Accordingly, they had handed over the key of the premises to the Petitioner. Now, the Petitioner's wife and in-laws are threatening the Petitioner by filing a 2/5

complaint before the Respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, the Petitioner had filed this petition seeking direction against the Respondents 1 and 2 not to interfere with the civil dispute.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that the Petitioner's mother-in-law/Kasim Beevi had lodged a complaint before the second Respondent, for which, CSR No.952 of 2022, dated 16.11.2022, was registered. The Petitioner and his wife had been separated due to misunderstanding between them. Now, the Petitioner is not living in the said premises.

4.From the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is found that the nature of the dispute is purely civil in nature. Both parties had approached the Respondents 1 and 2.

5.In the light of the above, the Respondents 1 and 2 are directed not to interfere with the civil dispute and both parties may sort out their dispute through a competent Civil Court.

3/5

6.With the above direction, this criminal original petition is disposed of. 29.11.2022 Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No lr To

1. The Commissioner of Police, O/o the Commissioner of Police, Madurai.

2. The Inspector of Police, Tallakulam Police Station, Madurai.

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

4/5

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

lr 29.11.2022 5/5