This was a petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. seeking protection from police harassment based on alleged false complaints. The police respondents denied the harassment allegations. The Court disposed of the petition noting the denial.
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.4000 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4000 of 2025
Antony Adimai
... Petitioner
Vs.
5.Raghul ... Respondents
1/5
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4000 of 2025
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, to direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to harass on the guise of enquiry against the petitioner and his family members based on the false complaints given by the respondents 4 and 5 and to pass further orders as this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Babu Jaganath For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to harass on the guise of enquiry against the petitioner and his family members based on the false complaints given by the respondents 4 and 5.
2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is one of the accused in Crime No.22 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 326, 506(2) and 307 of IPC and the same is pending in S.C.No.119 of 2020 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram and another case also registered in Crime No.31 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 506(2) and 307 of IPC and S.C.No.260 of 2023 also pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
2/5
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4000 of 2025
Ramanathapuram. While so, due to motive, one Jeyapal and Raghul gave a false complaint against the petitioner and his relatives before the Thangachimadam Police Station and Pamban Police Station. Based on the same, now the second and third respondents used to harass the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed this petition.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the official respondents would submit that the present petition is filed only on assumption and at any point of time, the respondents have not harassed the petitioner as alleged by him and they not even went to the house of the petitioner as alleged by him.
4. Since the prayer is not to harass the petitioner by the respondents 2 and 3, the respondents also denied the allegations levelled by the petitioner, this Court recording the above said submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the official respondents that they have not harassed the petitioner, this Court is inclined to dispose this petition.
3/5
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4000 of 2025
5. With the above said directions, this Criminal Original Petition stands
disposed of.
04.03.2025
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR
To
4/5
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4000 of 2025
P.DHANABAL, J.
BTR
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4000 of 2025
04.03.2025
5/5
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Antony Adimai
Superintendent of Police
Inspector of Police (L&O), Thangachimadam Police Station
Inspector of Police (L&O), Pamban Police Station
Jeyapalan
Raghul
P.Dhanabal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
