Madras High Court
G.Venkatesan vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 January, 2023
Crl.OP.No.32333 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
Crl.O.P.No.32333 of 2022
G.Venkatesan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
District Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
E-1, Thirumullaivoyal Police Station,
Thirumullaivoyal, Chennai 600 062.
3.Gopal ... Respondents
PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to
direct the first respondent to consider the representation dated 22.12.2022 by not
to harass the petitioner by second respondent Inspector of Police, T 10,
Thirumullaivoyal Police Station in the guise of enquiry.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ravichandran
For Respondent : Mr.S.Santhosh for R1 & R2
Government Advocate(Crl.side)
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.32333 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the second
respondent police not to harass the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had
sold the property to the third respondent in the year 1983. Thereafter, the
petitioner's brother Srinivasan filed a suit for injunction in O.S.No.174 of 1997
before the District Munsif Court, Ambattur. The suit was dismissed. Against the
dismissal of the suit, appeal has been filed in A.S.No.4 of 2004 and the appeal
was adjudicated infavour of the petitioner's brother Srinivasan. Then, the third
respondent filed second appeal in S.A.No.1281 of 2005. The second appeal was
dismissed with a direction to the third respondent to work out his remedy by way
of filing a suit for partition. Instead of filing a suit for partition, the third
respondent had given a complaint to the second respondent, making false
allegation and on the basis of the complaint, the petitioner is being harassed by
the second respondent police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.32333 of 2022
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
respondents 1 & 2 submitted that on the basis of the complaint given by the third
respondent, the petition enquiry is pending in C.No.1907 of2022.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents 1 &2.
5. This Court on going through the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and the judgment passed in S.A.No.1281 of 2005, finds
that the issue with regard to purchase of property was adjudicated in favour of
the petitioner's brother and direction was given to the third respondent to work
out his remedy by way of filing a partition suit. Therefore, it is not appropriate on
the part of the third respondent to give police complaint in a civil dispute.
6. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent has been
harassing him under the guise of an enquiry/investigation and hence, has invoked
the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.32333 of 2022
7. In the present case in hand, the petitioner has complained of
harassment by the police based on a complaint and seek for this Court's
intervention by way of a direction. The term 'harassment' by itself has a very
wide meaning and hence, what could be harassment to the petitioner may not be
the same to the police officer.
8. In order to circumvent such situations, the following guidelines are
issued:
a)While summoning any person named in the complaint or any witness to
the incident complained of, the police officer shall summon such person through
a written summon under Section 160 Cr.P.C., specifying a particular date and
time for appearing before them for such an enquiry/investigation.
b) The respondent police is directed to serve summons mentioning the
CSR number, date of complaint and the name of the complainant.
c)The minutes of the enquiry shall be recorded in the general diary/station
diary/daily diary of the police station.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.32333 of 2022
d)The police officer shall refrain himself or herself from harassing persons
called upon for enquiry/investigation.
e)The guidelines stipulated for preliminary enquiry or registration of FIR
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar
Pradesh and others [2014 (2) SCC (1)] shall be strictly adhered to.
9. With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.
03.01.2023
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
shk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.32333 of 2022
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN,J.
shk
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
District Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
E-1, Thirumullaivoyal Police Station,
Thirumullaivoyal, Chennai 600 062.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.32333 of 2022
03.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
