1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6193 of 2011 Kannan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Police, Office of the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Alagarkovil Road, Madurai. 2.The Additional Superintendent of Police, Office of the Additional Superintendent of Police, South Chitrai Veethi, Madurai. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner in any way without following due process of law in the name of enquiry for the chit transaction which is a civil dispute. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthilkumar For Respondents : Ms.S.Prabha, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER This petition has been filed to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner in any way without following due process of law in the name of enquiry for the chit transaction which is a civil dispute. 2. Heard Mr.R.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. According to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was harassed by the 2nd respondent under the guise of enquiry and therefore, the 2nd 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 her argument that a complaint is pending against the petitioner and there is no harassment against the petitioner and if any interrogation is needed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 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. She would further submit that there will not be any harassment and if any enquiry or interrogation, it would be done in accordance with law. 5. According to the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), there was no harassment by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner. She would also state that there would not be any harassment in future also. 6. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the respondent police will not harass the petitioner in future under the guise of any enquiry, this petition is closed with a direction to the effect that there shall be no harassment to the petitioner 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 ordered. Sd/ Vacation Officer / Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector General of Police, Office of the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Alagarkovil Road, Madurai. 2.The Additional Superintendent of Police, Office of the Additional Superintendent of Police, South Chitrai Veethi, Madurai. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6193 of 2011 02.06.2011 vsm SMA/08.06.2011/4C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/