T. Baskaran v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.12.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR T.Baskaran : Petitioner Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District.
2.The Inspector of Police, O/o.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Trichy District.
3.Stalin : Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner in the guise of enquiry by considering the petitioner's representation dated 21.06.2024. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nihar Ali For R1 & R2 : Mr.P.Kottaichamy Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
The petitioner had sent a representation on 21.06.2024 stating that the second respondent in the guise of enquiry has been calling the 1/5
petitioner often and demanding Rs.50,000/- to be paid, otherwise, on the complaint of the third respondent, a case would be registered against the petitioner. Further contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is employed as tea master in Pallavaram. The petitioner's son Prakash working in hotel at T.Nagar, Chennai. One Sivakumar and Stalin/third respondent both were also working with the petitioner's son. During April-2023, the third respondent/Stalin paid sum of Rs.2,30,000/- for arranging job for him through the petitioner's son. Later, the third respondent for some reason failed to join the work and hence, deducting the expense, it was agreed by the petitioner's son that amount of Rs.1,80,000/- would be repaid. The petitioner during the year 2023, a sum of Rs.80,000/- was paid in KVB account of third respondent.
Thereafter, the third respondent along with his brother and others entered into the petitioner's house, trespassed, took away the Pan Card, Community Certificate, +10 mark sheet of petitioner's son and also his IDBI Bank ATM Card and other bank documents. Signatures were also forcibly obtained in the blank paper from the petitioner and his son. Suppressing the same, a complaint has been lodged by the third respondent. The petitioner appeared before the second respondent police and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.
arrangement in the meanwhile and deposited Rs.1 Lakh to the credit of one Bharathi as instructed by the third respondent. Again, summons were issued to the petitioner to appear for enquiry. Hence, this petition.
2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police on instructions would submit that in this case the issue had been resolved in the year 2023. After 2023, the petitioner was not called for any enquiry. For the delay in making payment to the third respondent, the petitioner had given a story as if the second respondent called the petitioner for enquiry. The dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent. The second respondent has got nothing to do with the dispute between them.
3. In view of the above submission, nothing survives for further adjudication in this case. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.
04.12.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Rmk 3/5
To 1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District.
2.The Inspector of Police, O/o.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Trichy District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4/5
M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.
Rmk 04.12.2024 5/5