Disposed¶28

Thangadurai v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC7 Feb 2025CRL OP(MD)/2376/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2376 of 2025, Madras HC (Madurai Bench), 07.02.2025, P.Dhanabal J.; S.528 BNSS Act; police harassment allegation during enquiry into civil property dispute; CSR.No.56 of 2025; direction to Inspector of Police, Allinagaram PS, to complete enquiry within two weeks; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the third respondent (Inspector of Police, Allinagaram Police Station) to complete the enquiry in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; with these observations the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. ¶28

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 1 and 2 should be directed to instruct the third respondent not to interfere with the pending civil dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent and not to harass the petitioner and his family members under the guise of the enquiry without following due process of law.

¶18

Court's answer

It is an admitted fact that there is a property dispute pending between the petitioner and the fourth respondent; according to the fourth respondent, he executed a power deed in favour of the petitioner, and upon his complaint the third respondent police assigned CSR.No.56 of 2025 and issued summons to the petitioner for enquiry.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Recording the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the court held it appropriate to direct the third respondent to complete the enquiry within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (P.DHANABAL, J.) — Crl.O.P(MD)No.2376 of 2025, decided 07.02.2025. Petition under S.528 BNSS Act by Thangadurai seeking directions to the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Theni, to instruct the Inspector of Police, Allinagaram Police Station (third respondent), not to interfere with a pending civil property dispute with the fourth respondent (Tamil Chezilan) and not to harass the petitioner and his family under the guise of enquiry without due process. The court recorded the admitted position that a property dispute was pending, that the fourth respondent claimed a power deed had been executed in favour of the petitioner and had lodged a complaint resulting in CSR.No.56 of 2025 and summons to the petitioner, and directed the third respondent to complete the enquiry within two weeks of receipt of a copy of the order; petition disposed of.

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED : 07.02.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶5

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2376 of 2025

¶6

Thangadurai S/o.Vijay Raj

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The State Represented by its The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni.

¶10

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Theni, Theni District.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, Allinagaram Police Station, Theni District.

¶12

Tamil Chezilan

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to instruct the third respondent not to interfere with civil dispute and not to harass the petitioner and his family members under the guise of the enquiry without following due process of law.

¶15

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

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Dinesh For Respondent Nos.1 to3 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent No.4 : Mr.H.Thayumangaswamy

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to instruct the third respondent not to interfere with civil dispute and not to harass the petitioner and his family members under the guise of the enquiry without following due process of law.

¶19

According to the petitioner, there is a civil dispute pending between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent lodged a complaint regarding the said property dispute. Based upon the said complaint, the third respondent used to harass the petitioner frequently, and he directed the petitioner to appear before him. Already, the petitioner had appeared before the 3^rd respondent police and produced all the relevant records and documents. But, the third respondent is still continuing to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry. Therefore, the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed.

¶20

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

¶21

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1 to 3 respondents would submit that based upon the compliant given by the fourth respondent, the respondent police issued CSR.No.56 of 2025 and issued summon to the petitioner to appear before the respondent police for enquiry.

¶22

The learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would submit that the fourth respondent is the owner of the property and he executed a power deed in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner failed to pay any amount to the fourth respondent and he cheated the fourth respondent. Therefore, the fourth respondent lodged a complaint before the third respondent. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the present Criminal Original Petition.

¶23

Heard both side and perused the available material on record.

¶24

In this case, it is the admitted fact that there is a property dispute pending between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. According to the fourth respondent, he executed a power deed in favour of the petitioner.

¶25

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

¶26

The petitioner has not paid any amount to the fourth respondent and thereby the fourth respondent lodged a complaint before the 3^rd respondent police. On receipt of the said complaint, the third respondent police assigned CSR.No.56 of 2025 and issued summons to the petitioner, for enquiry.

¶27

In the above said circumstances and recording the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is appropriate to direct the third respondent to complete the enquiry in accordance with within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly ordered.

¶28