1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15932 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 K.Ponnusamy ...Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivaganga. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karaikudi, Sivaganga District. 3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Karaikudi, Sivaganga District. ...Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondents herein not to compel and threaten the petitioner and his family members to produce the minor child Haridha till the matter is decided by the competent Court in G.W.O.P.37/2011 on the file of the District Court, Virudhunagar, Srivilliputtur. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Natarajan For Respondents : Mr.P.Kannithevan, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed to direct the respondents not to compel and threaten the petitioner and his family members to produce the minor child Haridha till the matter is decided by the competent Court in G.W.O.P.37/2011 on the file of the District Court, Virudhunagar, Srivilliputtur. 2. Heard Mr.S.Natarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Kannithevan, 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 respondent police for the production of minor child viz., Haridha and therefore, 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 no harassment against the petitioner and if any interrogation is needed by the respondent against the petitioner, 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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 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. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( CO ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR vsm To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivaganga. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karaikudi, Sivaganga District. 3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Karaikudi, Sivaganga District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 1CC TO MR.S. NATARAJAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 43892: DM:2011:DEC:21:: Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15932 of 2011 14.12.2011 2P:6C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/