Dismissed¶29

D.Prabhaharan v. The Seniof Superintendent of Police

Madras HC30 Mar 2026CRL OP/8021/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, CRL OP No. 8021 of 2026, decided 30-03-2026 by Justice M. Nirmal Kumar. Petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking direction not to harass petitioner D.Prabhaharan dismissed. Police verification/enquiry before General Election of 09.04.2026 held to be action in accordance with law as precautionary measure to ensure public peace, not harassment. Background: petitioner involved in three cases (investigations completed); earlier detention order of District Collector/District Magistrate, Mayiladuthurai dated 06.08.2025 quashed in HCP No.1804 of 2025 (04.03.2026).

What did the court decide?

In view of the General Election in Puducherry scheduled for 09.04.2026, the respondent police acted in accordance with law to ensure public peace and as a precautionary measure; such action cannot be construed as harassment. ¶29

D.Prabhaharan Vs The Seniof Superintendent of Police — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRL OP No. 8021 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 30-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP No. 8021 of 2026

D.Prabhaharan

Petitioner(s)

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Karaikal District, Puducherry.

¶10

2.The Superintendent of Police (North) Karaikal District, Puducherry.

¶11

3.The Station House Officer, Thirunallar Police Station, Karaikal District, Puducherry.

¶12

Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner in any manner affecting his fundamental right and pass such further orders.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Vinoth

¶15

For Respondent(s): Mr.M.V. Ramachandra Murthy Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

CRL OP No. 8021 of 2026

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents not to harass the petitioner in any manner affecting his fundamental rights.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

¶22

Mr.M.V.Ramachandra Murthy, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for

¶23

the respondents submitted that the petitioner is involved in three cases and that the investigation in all those cases have been completed. He further submitted that, since the petitioner had earlier disturbed the public peace and tranquillity, his whereabouts were verified. It is also submitted that by the orders of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Mayiladuthurai, dated 06.08.2025, the petitioner was detained under a detention order. However, the said detention was quashed by this Court in HCP No.1804 of 2025, vide order dated 04.03.2026, and the petitioner was set at liberty.

¶24

Further, he submitted that, it was informed that the petitioner is presently in Karaikal and that an enquiry was conducted only for verification purposes, which cannot be termed as harassment. Further, he submitted that

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

CRL OP No. 8021 of 2026

¶28

General Election is scheduled to be held on 09.04.2026, and as a precautionary measure, the respondent police acted accordingly.

¶29

In view of the above submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court is of the view that, in the light of the General Election in Puducherry to be held on 09.04.2026, the respondent police acted in accordance with law to ensure public peace and as a precautionary measure. Such action cannot be construed as harassment. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶30

30-03-2026

¶31

¶32

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶33

¶34