Rajesh v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.01.2025

CORAM

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

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep., by the Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Town Division, Dindigul District.

3.The Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Dindigul District.

4.Muniyandi 5.Balasubramaniyan 6.Dharmaraj 7.RAvichandran 8.Gladius 9.Prapakaran 10.Manikandan 11.Sakthivel .. Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to direct the respondent Nos.3 to 11 for not to harass the petitioner and his family members in accordance with law.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar For R1 to R3 : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioner submitted that the respondents 3 to 11 are harassing the petitioner and falsely implicated him in one case or other. The petitioner had sent a representation on 02.12.2024, but the same has not been acted upon. In his representation, he had stated that the respondent police are illegally entering into the petitioner's house and conducting a search without any permission. Further, they have threatened the petitioner's uncle one Samidurai to produce the petitioner before the official and the petitioner's son Mageswaran studying first year of college and Jotheeswaran studying 10th standard would also be included. The petitioner earlier was in prison and now, he had come out on bail and doing some painting work and thereby, running his family.

2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petitioner's contention stating that the petitioner is the history sheeter in H.S.No.17 of 2016. History sheet was opened on 23.06.2016. Further, submitted that the petitioner in his earlier teens was classified as history sheeter. He had been involving himself in one case or other from the year 2/5

2014. So far, there are 9 cases against the petitioner, out of which, four cases are murder cases, which have been committed at regular period in the year 2017, 2019 and two murders in the year 2023. The petitioner is also involved in drunken browl. The petitioner is the menace to the society committing regular offence. On the specific information, the respondent police had gone there and the whereabouts the petitioner is to be kept on tag, since the petitioner is the history sheeter, to save the society from the menace of rowdyisam and criminal activities of the petitioner and its associates, which cannot be termed as harassment.

3. Considering the submissions and perusal of the materials, this Court finding that the petitioner is the history sheeter and the act of the respondent police is only to save the society taking precautions measures and to keep and watch over the known criminals and save the society from the criminal menace, which cannot be termed as harassment. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

07.01.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Rmk 3/5

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Town Division, Dindigul District.

3.The Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

4/5

M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.

Rmk 07.01.2025 5/5