R.Venkatesh vs The Inspector Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 3953 Mad

                                                             1

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 17.02.2021

                                                        CORAM:

                               THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

                                                   W.P.No.3071 of 2021

                     R.Venkatesh                                                 .. Petitioner
                                                           -vs-
                     1. The Inspector of Police,
                     Central Crime Branch,
                     EDF-II, Team IV,
                     Vepery, Chennai-7.

                     2. G.Karthick
                                                                                  .. Respondents

                     Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to
                     issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent not to harass the
                     petitioner at the instance of the second respondent complaint which was
                     closed by the Investigating Authority by order dated 27.08.2020.


                                      For Petitioner   : Mr.L.Dhamodaran
                                      For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
                                                         Additional Public Prosecutor

                                                        ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the first

respondent not to harass the petitioner.

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

2. The case of the petitioner is that there was a commercial

transaction with the second respondent and there was some

misunderstanding between the parties. The second respondent initially

gave a complaint before the first respondent and the same was enquired

in C.No.1283 of 2019 and the complaint was closed on 27.08.2020.

Thereafter, one more complaint was given by the second respondent

before the first respondent and the same was entertained in C.No.632 of

2020. This complaint also was closed after enquiry on 18.11.2020. The

grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of two earlier complaints being

enquired and closed, the first respondent is repeatedly harassing the

petitioner and left with no other option, the present writ petition has been

filed before this Court.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

the first respondent, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner was

called for an enquiry based on a subsequent complaint wherein the

second respondent had produced more incriminating materials against

the petitioner. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted

that the first respondent will take a decision strictly in accordance with https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

law on the complaint and will either close the complaint or if a

cognizance offence is made out, will proceed to register an FIR based on

the said complaint.

4. In the considered view of this Court, the first respondent had

enquired the complaint given by the second respondent twice and found

that there was no ground to proceed further and closed the complaints.

The first respondent, after closing the complaints, cannot keep calling the

petitioner repeatedly for enquiry and harass the petitioner. If the defacto

complainant is aggrieved by the closure of the earlier two complaints, it

is for him to work out his remedy in the manner known to law by filing

an appropriate petition before the Magistrate. The second respondent

cannot keep on reviving his complaints before the first respondent and

keep calling the petitioner for enquiry repeatedly.

5. In view of the above, the first respondent is directed not to

harass the petitioner in the name of enquiry. If the second respondent has

given any subsequent complaint to the first respondent and if the first

respondent is convinced that there is a cognizable offence made out, the

first respondent has to proceed further in accordance with law and the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

first respondent cannot again keep it at a complaint stage and call the

petitioner for enquiry. This procedure adopted by the first respondent is

not in line with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha

Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2013 (6) CTC

353. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment had only said that when

there is a commercial transaction, there is scope for some preliminary

enquiry before registration of an FIR. In this case, the first respondent

had enquired the complaint atleast on two earlier occasions and found

that there was no case against the petitioner.

6. In the result, this Writ petition is disposed of with a direction to

the first respondent not to harass the petitioner in the name of enquiry

unless the subsequent complainant has been taken on file and an FIR has

been registered. No costs.

17.02.2021

Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No

rli

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

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, EDF-II, Team IV, Vepery, Chennai-7.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

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

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.

rli

W.P.No.3071 of 2021

17.02.2021

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