1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15566 of 2011 Marutharaja ... Petitioner -Vs-. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Batlagundu Police Station Dindigul District. ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioner in the guise of enquiry. For Petitioner :Mr.S.Muthu Venkatesan For Respondent :Mr.P.Kannaithevan, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R This petition has been filed to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioner in the guise of enquiry. 2. Heard Mr.S.Muthu Venkatesan learned Counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner, the petitioner was 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 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. 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. The respondent police is further directed to dispose of the said complaint within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass suitable orders in accordance with law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 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 closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1. The Inspector of Police, Batlagundu Police Station Dindigul District. 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +1cc to Mr.S.Muthuvenkatesan, Advocate, Sr.No.41909 gsr GH : 01.12.2011 : 1p/4c (IT) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15566 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/