Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/21210/2024disposed of

Ramesh v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

2024-12-04Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.12.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Ramesh : Petitioner Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu rep., by 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Mukkudal Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

3.Chockkalal 4.Kayalvizhi 5.Manibala : Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to direct the fourth and fifth respondents not to harass the petitioner on the complaint given by the third respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Saravanan For R1 & R2 : Mr.P.Kottaichamy Government Advocate (Crl.side) 1/4

ORDER

The petitioner had sent a representation to the respondent police on 26.10.2024 stating that the third respondent had approached the petitioner to help him mutation of revenue records. The petitioner had introduced VAO for the said job and the third respondent had paid Rs.75,000/- to VAO, Murugan. In the meanwhile, VAO, Murugan, passed away. Hence, the work could not be completed. But, the petitioner is harassed to repay the amount paid to Murugan.

2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that on the complaint of third respondent, who is 75 years old person and also sick person, unable to move, had approached for mutation of revenue records. The petitioner claiming that he is friend of VAO and he would facilitate and get the work done and collected Rs.1,00,000/- from the third respondent, thereafter, he failed to do work. Hence, the third respondent had demanded return of money. After complaint, the petitioner appeared before the second respondent police for enquiry and gave undertaking that he would settle the amount. Now, makes claim that he is harassed and it is for the VAO Late.Murugan to pay and not the petitioner. 2/4

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is true that the petitioner had introduced VAO, Murugan. Now, the petitioner was forced to give an undertaking during earlier enquiry. Further, submitted that the petitioner is ready to appear before the respondent police on 12.12.2024 and also resolve the issue with the third respondent/defacto complainant.

4. In view of the above, the petitioner to appear before the second respondent police on 12.12.2024, give his explanation and the respondent police to conclude the investigation without any delay.

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

04.12.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Rmk Note :Issue order copy on 11.12.2024 To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Mukkudal Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

3/4

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

M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.

Rmk 04.12.2024 4/4