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.16156 of 2011 K.S.Pandi ...Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District,Theni. 2.Selvaraj,Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Land Grabbing Special Cell).Theni District,Theni. 3.Gopinath Pandian,The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, (Land Grabbing Special Cell),Theni District. ...Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the 2nd 3rd respondents not to interfere into the civil disputes and consequently directing to the respondents 2 and 3 not to harass the petitioner and his family members under guise of enquiry. For Petitioners : Mr.Arunachalam @ Arun For Respondents : Mr.P.Kannithevan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to interfere into the civil disputes and consequently directing to the respondents 2 and 3 not to harass the petitioner and his family members under guise of enquiry. 2. Heard Mr.Arunachalam @ Arun, 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 respondents are interfering with the civil dispute of the petitioner and the petitioner was harassed by the respondents 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. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that there is only petition enquiry is pending against petitioner and therefore, 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 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. 6. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the respondents police are not interfering the civil rights of the petitioner and they 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/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(CO) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. vsm To 1.The Superintendent of Police,Theni District,Theni. 2.Selvaraj, Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Land Grabbing Special Cell),Theni District,Theni. 3.Gopinath Pandian, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch,(Land Grabbing Special Cell),Theni District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. 1cc To Mr.Arunachalam @ Arun, Advocate( SR No.43778 ) SB 22/12/2011 2P 6C Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16156 of 2011 14.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/