Disposed¶26

Raman v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC9 Sept 2025CRL OP(MD)/14845/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anti-harassment criminal original petition (Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14845 of 2025, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, decided 09.09.2025 by Sunder Mohan, J.) filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the Superintendent, Inspector and Sub-Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station, Madurai District; enquiry into the complaint of private respondents Pandiammal and Leelavathi closed as a civil dispute; petition closed, no coercive-direction relief adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Recording the Additional Public Prosecutor's submission that the enquiry into the complaint of respondents 4 and 5 was closed as it disclosed only a civil dispute, the Court closed the Criminal Original Petition. ¶26

Raman Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14845 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14845 of 2025

1.Raman

2.Naatcha Kone

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by, The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶12

2.State rep. through its, The Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station, Othakadai, Madurai.

¶13

3.State rep. through its, The Sub Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station, Othakadai, Madurai.

4.Pandiammal

5.Leelavathi

...Respondents

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023,

¶18

to issue direction to the 1^st respondent to give instruction to 2^nd and 3^rd respondents not to harass the petitioners.

¶19

1/4

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14845 of 2025

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Vijayasethupathy For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor For R-4 & R-5 : Mr.N.Jothivel

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners seek a direction to the respondents not to harass them under the guise of enquiry.

¶25

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that based on the complaint given by the respondents 4 and 5, an enquiry was conducted and the same was closed as it discloses only a civil dispute.

¶26

Recording the above submission, this Criminal Original Petition stands closed.

¶27

09.09.2025

¶28

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Lm

¶29

2/4

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14845 of 2025

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

2.The Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station, Othakadai, Madurai.

¶35

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station, Othakadai, Madurai.

¶36

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

¶37

3/4

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14845 of 2025 SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶40

¶41

Crl.O.P(MD).No.14845 of 2025

¶42

09.09.2025

¶43

4/4

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Raman v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raman v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saravanan @ Saravanakumar Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Sulakshana Vs The Superintendent of Police

Ravichandran Vs Revenue and Disaster Management Department

L.G.Sarath Inigo Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Sathish @ Sathishkumar Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Girija Vs The Commissioner of Police