Petitioner sought direction to police not to harass after a complaint was lodged. Court held that once a regular FIR is registered, the question of harassment does not arise; directing otherwise would interfere with police investigation. Petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7125 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.06.2021 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7125 of 2021
N.Ramachandran
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendant of Police, Theni District, Theni.
2.The Inspector of Police, Devathanapatti Police Station, Devathanapatti, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District.
3.J.Ashok Kumar ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the first respondent to give suitable direction to the second respondent not to harass the petitioner at the instigation of the third respondent by considering the petitioner's complaint dated 20.10.2020, within the period as stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Atham Ali For R-1 and R-2 : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, Government Advocate(Crl.side)
ORDER
This petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to give suitable direction to the second respondent not to harass the petitioner at the instigation of the third respondent by considering the petitioner's complaint dated 20.10.2020.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) for the respondents 1 and 2.
3.Perused the materials placed on record.
4.When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that on receipt of the complaint, the respondent police conducted the investigation and registered a case in Crime No.72 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 452, 323 and 506(ii) of IPC against the petitioner.
1/2
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7125 of 2021
5.Under such circumstances, once the regular FIR has been registered, the question of “Not to harass” will not arise. Any direction issued by this Court at this stage will amount to interfering with the investigation conducted by the respondent police.
6.Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is closed. Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (P&A)
// True Copy //
/ /2021
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendant of Police, Theni District, Theni.
2.The Inspector of Police, Devathanapatti Police Station, Devathanapatti, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7125 of 2021
03.06.2021
KB(17.06.2021) 2P 4C
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere to prevent harassment after the police registered a regular FIR and commenced investigation.
Whether a direction not to harass amounts to interference with the investigation conducted by the respondent police.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N.Ramachandran
The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendant of Police, Theni District, Theni
The Inspector of Police, Devathanapatti Police Station, Devathanapatti, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District
J.Ashok Kumar
A.A.Nakkiran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
