S. Ramakrishnan v. The Superintendent Of Police, Dindigul

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI S.Ramakrishnan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thandikudi Police Station, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

3.Venketeshen ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Bhaskar For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/6

ORDER

This criminal original petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass him in respect to a complaint lodged against him by the 3rd respondent who is none other than his own brother.

2. The dispute between the petitioner and his brother i.e., the 3rd respondent herein is with respect to house property. The learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the house property is already partitioned and all the title deeds stand in his name and mutation has also been effected.

3. Per Contra the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on instructions submitted that the 3rd respondent is the absolute owner of the house property and he has presently settled in Coimabatore. Utilizing his absence in the native, the petitioner who is none other than the own brother of the 3rd respondent, had forcibly opened the locked house and had leased out the property to third parties. When the 3rd 2/6

respondent visited to his native, he was shocked to understand that this property is in the custody of some unknown persons and hence, he had lodged complaint, for which the police had required the petitioner to appear before them for a proper enquiry, however he failed to cooperate. Hence, he has no legitimacy to seek the production of this Court in the guise of not to harass him. He sought for dismissal of the criminal original petition.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though earlier the partition was effected and the house property was allotted to the 3rd respondent, later he had executed a release deed with respect to the said property in favour of the petitioner. For which, this Court required the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce the said release deed. The learned counsel for the petitioner had produced before me a unregistered compromised deed dated 24.12.2018.

5. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3/6

6. In view of the documents produced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court directs the petitioner to produce all those documents before the respondent police and directs the respondent police to receive the documents and peruse the same and conclude the enquiry, in accordance with law.

7. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the mention that the petitioner should not be harassed. 10.12.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No gbg To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thandikudi Police Station, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

4/6

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

5/6

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

gbg 10.12.2025 6/6