1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1401 of 2011 M.Subramanian Suresh ...Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thuckalay Police Station, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District. ...Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner and the staff members of Bajaj Finance Limited. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthilkumar, for M/s.Jayapaul Associates For Respondents : Mr.L.Murugan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Mr.Dilipkumar for Intervenor O R D E R This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner and the staff members of Bajaj Finance Limited. 2. Heard Mr.R.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent and Mr.Dilipkumar, learned counsel for the intervenor. 3. According to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner and his staff members were harassed by the respondent police under the guise of enquiry and therefore, the respondents may be directed to follow the norms to be followed for doing interrogation and suitable orders may be passed for not harassing the petitioner and his staff members. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that there is no harassment against the petitioner and his staff members and if any interrogation is needed by the respondent against the petitioner and his staff members , 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. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor would submit that the intervenor has given a complaint before the respondent police and it is pending enquiry and a case was also registered against him. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 6. Considering the submissions made on both sides, the police is entitled to investigate the matter by interrogating the petitioners and his staff memebrs 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. 7. Recording the statement of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the respondent police will not harass the petitioner and his staff members in future under the guise of any enquiry in respect of the said case, this petition is closed with a direction to the effect that there shall be no harassment to the petitioner and his staff members 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. 8. With the above direction, this Petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thuckalay Police Station, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai +1cc to Mr.J.Ashok, Advocate SR.4578 +1cc to Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, Advocate SR.4618 arul SR : 22.02.2011 : 2p/6c Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1401 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/