1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Criminal Original Petition(MD)No.16454 of 2011 1. Baby 2. Mrs.Chandirika 3. Nijith ... Petitioners Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police Nithiravilai Police Station Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioners in the pretext of search of absconding accused Vinoth in S.C.No.19 of 2006 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kuzhithurai. For Petitioner :: Mr.C.K.M.Appaji For Respondents :: Mr.P.Kannithevan,GA(Criminal Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed to to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioners in the pretext of search of absconding accused Vinoth in S.C.No.19 of 2006 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kuzhithurai. 2. Heard Mr.C.K.M.Appaji, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Kannithevan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. According to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners were harassed by the respondent police under the guise of enquiry and therefore, the respondent may be directed to follow the norms to be followed for doing interrogation and suitable orders may be passed for not harassing the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that there is only petition enquiry is pending against petitioners and therefore, there is no harassment against the petitioners and if any interrogation is needed by the respondent against the petitioners, the norms, which are mentioned in the Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610, would be followed in case of interrogation or any further investigation. He would further submit that there will not be any harassment and the enquiry or interrogation would be done in accordance with law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. Considering the submissions made on both sides, the police is entitled to investigate the matter by interrogating the petitioners in proper manner. According to the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, there was no harassment done by the police. He would also state that there will not be any harassment in future also. 6. Recording the statement of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the respondent police will not harass the petitioners in future under the guise of any enquiry in respect of the said case, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the effect that there shall be no harassment to the petitioners on the side of the respondent police and they are to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610. 7. With the above direction, this Petition is disposed of. SD ASST REGISTRAR(CO) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR am To 1. The Inspector of Police Nithiravilai Police Station Kanyakumari District. 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 1cc To Mr.C.K.M.Appaji, Advocate SR No.45139 SB:02/01/2012 2P 4C Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16454 of 2011 19.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/