Vennila v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl. O.P(MD) No. 22927 of 2025

1. Vennila

2. Gokulnath.

... Petitioners Vs

1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai Sub Division, Sivagangai District.

3. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Sivagangai District.

4. Alagesan ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 to direct the Respondent No.3 not to harass the petitioners and pass such further of Page No. 1 of 5

other orders as this Court.

For petitioner :Mr. R.Venkatesan For R1 to R3 :Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) *****

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking a direction to the third respondent not to harass the petitioners.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent police is continuously subjecting the petitioners to harassment in respect to a complaint lodged by the fourth respondent regarding a compound wall dispute. He also pointed out that already Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18913 of 2025 was filed before this Court. Based on the submission of the Additional Public Prosecutor that on the complaint given by the fourth respondent, enquiry was conducted and the same was closed, the said petition was dismissed as infructuous on 05.11.2025. However, thereafter also, the petitioner is subjected to harassment by the third respondent police and hence, sought indulgence of this Court. Page No. 2 of 5

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, on instructions, submitted that on 05.11.2025, only based on instructions received from the third respondent police, the petitioners have given a written undertaking to the effect that they will not further create any trouble with the fourth respondent with respect to the compound wall and the enquiry was closed. He further submitted that the second petitioner was not in India on 05.11.2025 and based on the undertaking given by the first respondent, who is the wife of the second respondent, the enquiry was closed. However, after 05.11.2025, the first petitioner returned to India, they are creating problems with the fourth respondent. Hence, only based on the complaint of the fourth respondent, the third respondent called for the petitioners for enquiry.

4. This Court has heard both sides and perused the materials.

5. Since the issues with respect to the compound wall between the two parties has already been closed, directing the parties to work out their remedy before the appropriate civil court, this Criminal Original Petition Page No. 3 of 5

is closed. In view of the said order, notice to the fourth respondent is dispensed with.

15.12.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd To

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

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai Sub Division, Sivagangai District.

3. The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Sivagangai District.

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

Page No. 4 of 5

L.VICTORIA GOWRI,J apd Crl O.P.(MD) No. 22927 of 2025 15.12.2025 Page No. 5 of 5