Dismissed¶33

Subbiah v. State Rep. By

Madras HC17 Mar 2026CRL OP/6952/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of a 'not to harass' petition by cited witnesses: Madras HC holds that summoning witnesses for police enquiry during preliminary investigation is not harassment and witnesses must cooperate with the enquiry; inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. not invoked. Keywords: not to harass, enquiry, witness, preliminary investigation, C.S.R.No.201 of 2026, complaint dated 19.02.2026, civil dispute, Tamilselvan, Vijay, Section 528 of B.N.S.S., Section 482 Cr.P.C, Criminal Original Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Calling the petitioners for enquiry, in the course of preliminary investigation, cannot be termed as harassment. ¶27

Subbiah Vs State Rep. By — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRL OP No. 6952 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

CRL OP No. 6952 of 2026

¶7

Subbiah

2. Sathishkumar

..Petitioner(s)

State Rep. By The Commissioner of Police, Avadi, Chennai-54.

¶12

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Korattur Police Station, Chennai - 80.

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., to direct the respondent Police not to harass the petitioners as per their complaint dated 19.02.2026.

¶15

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.J.Nissar Ahmed For Respondent(s): Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction

¶18

to the respondents not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.

¶19

__________ Page1 of 4

¶20

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

¶21

CRL OP No. 6952 of 2026

¶22

2 . The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitiners

¶23

are no way connected with the alleged money transaction except being cited as

¶24

witnesses. It is contended that the dispute, if any, is purely civil in nature between the complainant and the said Tamilselvan and the petitioners have been unnecessarily dragged into the enquiry.

¶25

3 . Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶26

4 . It is seen from the records that the petitioners were cited as witnesses in connection with a transaction wherein one Tamilselvan had allegedly received money from the complainant, Vijay and failed to repay the same. Thereafter, in connection with C.S.R.No.201 of 2026, the petitioners were called for enquiry to ascertain the factual aspects of the case.

¶27

5 . This Court is of the considered view that calling the petitioners for enquiry, in the course of preliminary investigation, cannot be termed as harassment. The petitioners being witnesses to the alleged transaction, are bound to cooperate with the enquiry.

¶28

__________ Page2 of 4

¶29

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

¶30

CRL OP No. 6952 of 2026

¶31