1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2224 of 2011 S.Mumtaj Begam ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. 2.The Inspector of Police, B1 Villakkuthoon Police Station, Madurai. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the 2nd respondent for not to harass the petitioner and her family members. For Petitioner : Mr. M.Sheik Abdullah For Respondents : Mr.L.Murugan Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent for not to harass the petitioner and her family members. 2. Heard Mr.M.Sheik Abdullah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.Murugan, 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 and her family members were harassed by the 2n 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 his argument that a non bailable warrant is pending against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent police has to approach the petitioner for executing the non bailable warrant and there is no harassment against the petitioner and her family members and if any interrogation is needed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner and her family 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 if any enquiry or interrogation, it would be done in accordance with law. 5. According to the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, there was no harassment by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner and her family members. He would also state that there would not be any harassment in future also. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 6. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the 2nd respondent police will not harass the petitioner and her family members 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 and her family members on the side of the 2nd 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 closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. 2. The Inspector of Police, B1 Villakkuthoon Police Station, Madurai. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.M.Sheik Abdullah, Advocate SR.No.9553 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2224 of 2011 23.02.2011 vsm PA/15.03.2011/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/