Mohan Dass v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.11.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Mohan Dass .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The Director General of Police No.601, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore, Chennai- 600 004.

2. The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Tenkasi District .. Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner on the guise of enquiry in connection with the cases already registered against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.Ramanujam for M/s.Gandhi Associates For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar No. 1 and 2 Additional Public Prosecutor 1/5

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner on the guise of enquiry in connection with the cases already registered against the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that earlier a case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.17 of 2024 by the Maraneri Police Station, Virudhunagar District and another case was also registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 6 of 2024 by the District Crime Branch, Tirupur District. The petitioner was arrested and later he came out on bail. Now the Tenkasi police are calling the petitioner for enquiry. On enquiry the petitioner found that for similar cause of action complaints are registered in various police station and causing harassment. The father of the petitioner is a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is projected as though for getting employment in CRPF the petitioner and his father collected huge amounts and the First Information Report registered at random in various places.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the contention of the petitioner stating that against the petitioner two First 2/5

Information Reports are registered and now another complaint has been received by the Tenkasi Police Station and now the petitioner is called for enquiry.

4. The contention that all cases are similar cannot be decided at this stage. Only after receiving the complaint, registration of the First Information Report and during investigation if it is found that all the complaints are similar in nature arising out of same cause of auction thereafter appropriate steps would be taken. The victims hail from various places who got deceived lost money to the petitioner and his father. The victim one after another are now lodging complaint which cannot be by itself termed and projected that all cases are one and the same.

5. It is seen that it is a case of job racketing and the victim have been cheated by the accused. The victims who neither got job nor were repaid are now lodging complaint. The respondent police after considering the victim's complaint register the First Information Report and the petitioner is called for enquiry which cannot be termed as harassment.

3/5

6. In view of the same, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

29.11.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No aav To

1. The Director General of Police No.601, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore, Chennai- 600 004.

2. The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Tenkasi District 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.

aav 29.11.2024 5/5