1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6524 of 2011 C.Palanichamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District at Virudhunagar. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivakasi Sub Division, Sivakasi. 3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruthangal Police Station, Thiruthangal. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the 3rd respondent not to harass the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jeya Kumaran For Respondents : Ms.S.Prabha, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER This petition has been filed to direct the 3rd respondent not to harass the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr.J.Jeya Kumaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.S.Prabha, 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 3rd respondent under the guise of enquiry and therefore, the 3rd 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 her argument that no case and no petition is pending before the respondent police against the petitioner and there is no harassment and if any interrogation is needed by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner, the norms which are mentioned in the Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in D.K.Basu Vs. State of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610, would be followed in case of interrogation or any further investigation. She 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 (Crl. Side), there was no harassment by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner. She would also state that there would not be any harassment in future also. 6. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the 3rd respondent police 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 3rd 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/- Vacation Officer/ Deputy Registrar(Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District at Virudhunagar. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivakasi Sub Division, Sivakasi. 3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruthangal Police Station, Thiruthangal. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai vsm rl/5c- 8.6.2011 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6524 of 2011 02.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/