Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/23444/2023disposed of

K.Malliga v. The Superintendent Of Police

2024-01-02Honourable Mr Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.01.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP CRL.O.P (MD) No.23444 of 2023 K.Malliga

...Petitioner

vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police Office, Sivagangai District.

2.The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Assistant Superintendent of Police office, Karaikudi.

3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Karaikudi.

4.Ananthi (Women Police) All Women Police Station, Karaikudi.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to direct the respondent No.1 to instruct 3rd and 4th respondents not to harass the petitioner and her family members in the guise of enquiry on the basis of the false complaint.

1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kamaraj For Respondents : Mr.S.Veeranthiran Government Advocate (Crl.side) R1 to R3

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to direct the first Respondent to instruct 3rd and 4th respondents not to harass the petitioner and her family members in the guise of enquiry

2. This Petition is filed by the relative of the complainant, who is also a neighbour to the Petitioner. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner had been summoned to the Police Station daily and therefore, she is unable to earn her livelihood, hence, the present Petition had been filed.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that the complaint had been received regarding return of 10 Sovereigns of Gold and Cash worth about Rs.2,00,000/-. The Complaint was registered in July - 2023. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) further submits that on instructions from the 3rd respondent - Inspector of Police, All Women 2/4

Police Station, Karaikudi, they have conducted enquiry and they are likely to register the case. He also submits that the Petitioner herein is a neighbour of the complainant, on summons, already conducted enquiry and F.I.R to be registered.

4. In the light of the undertaking given by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), the Respondents 1 to 4 are directed not to harass the Petitioner by summoning the Petitioner at odd hours. The Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to act as per the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another [2014 (8) SCC 273].

5. With the above directions, this Petition is disposed of. Internet :Yes./No 02.01.2024 Index :Yes/No NCC : Yes/No Ls 3/4

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP , J.

Ls To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police Office, Sivagangai District.

2.The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Assistant Superintendent of Police office, Karaikudi.

3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Karaikudi.

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

CRL.O.P (MD) No.23444 of 2023 02.01.2024 4/4