Praveena v. The Superintendent Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 04.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Praveena, W/o.Thennarasu ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2.State of Tamilnadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thirukostiyur Police Station, Sivagangai District.

3.Pandimeenal ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry, on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 27.11.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Hari Haran, Advocate For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 1/5

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 27.11.2025.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the husband of the petitioner, namely Thennarasu, who had been working in Coimbatore, is in possession of certain documents belonging to the third respondent, who is none other than his mother. This is a dispute that has arisen between the mother and the son regarding the return of those documents. Owing to this, the third respondent lodged a complaint on 10.09.2025 against the petitioner, alleging that the documents are in the custody of the petitioner. However, the petitioner do not have any knowledge about the so-called documents with respect to the transactions between the mother and son. Despite the petitioner having appeared before the respondent police twice and having elaborately explained that she has no connection with the said documents in question, the second respondent police continues to subject her to harassment by repeatedly summoning her for enquiry. Hence, the petitioner seeks a direction restraining the second respondent from harassing her.

2/5

3. Per contra, Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), on instructions, submitted that the petitioner's husband had absconded and is no longer working in Coimbatore. He further submitted that, accordingly to the third respondent, it is the petitioner who has forcibly concealed all the documents with her and has sent her husband elsewhere. He also contended that the petitioner's claim of having appeared twice for enquiry is incorrect, and that she has not cooperated with the enquiry by appearing even once.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side, and carefully perused the materials available on record.

5. Considering the nature of the dispute involved, I am of the considered view that it is purely a family matter, and therefore the second respondent need not take unnecessary efforts in the name of investigation so as to trouble the petitioner.

6. In view of the above, the second respondent is directed to close the matter forthwith and refrain from harassing the petitioner. 3/5

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. 04.12.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No mkn To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thirukostiyur Police Station, Sivagangai District.

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

4/5

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

mkn 04.12.2025 5/5