Dismissed¶26

N.Raju v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

Madras HC20 Apr 2026CRL OP(MD)/7674/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police harassment / interference in civil dispute; tenant pressured to vacate house; petition enquiry closed on 15.04.2026 after non-appearance on 09.04.2026 and 11.04.2026; Section 528 BNSS Act; Crl.OP.(MD) closed without direction; Virudhunagar police; Vanniyampatti Police Station; Rajapalayam; Survey No.147/4; O.S.No.50 of 2026 District Munsif Court Rajapalayam. Outcome: petition closed (mapped as dismissed); no relief granted.

What did the court decide?

Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), the Criminal Original Petition is closed, without issuing the direction sought against police interference. ¶26

N.Raju Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.OP.(MD)No.7674 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.04.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

Crl.OP.(MD)No.7674 of 2026

N.Raju

... Petitioner

1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

¶11

2.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vanniyampatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

¶12

3.Kumarasamy

¶13

4.Shanthi ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, to issue a direction directing the 2nd respondent not to interfere in the civil dispute that exists between the petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4 in respect of a property measuring to an extent of 21 cents comprised in Survey No. 147/4 situated at Regunathapuram Village, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District which is the subject matter of O.S.No.50 of 2026 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Rajapalayam under the guise of enquiry on the respondents 3 and 4 foisted complaint.

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.OP.(MD)No.7674 of 2026

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Leninkumar For R1 and R2 : Mr.A.Albert James, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner, who is a tenant under the third respondent, has approached this Court with a grievance that the respondent police are harassing him to vacate the house at the instance of the third respondent.

¶21

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that, in fact, the petitioner himself had lodged a complaint against the third respondent alleging intimidation to vacate the house. The said complaint was treated as a petition enquiry, and both the petitioner and the third respondent were called for enquiry. However, neither the petitioner nor the third respondent appeared for enquiry on 09.04.2026 and 11.04.2026, and therefore, the complaint was closed on 15.04.2026. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that, as on date, there is no complaint pending against the petitioner and that it was only the complaint lodged by the petitioner that was enquired into. Hence, it is contended that the respondent police are not harassing the petitioner.

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.OP.(MD)No.7674 of 2026

¶25