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.6537 of 2011 B.Ulaganathan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District. 2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Devakottai, Sivagangai District. 3.K.Sanmugavalli ... Respondents PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents and their men not to harass the petitioner and his family members based on the complaints of the third respondent, and her men. For Petitioner : Mr.R.M.Mahesh Kumaravel For Respondents : Mr.S.Prabha,Govt. Advocate (Criminal side) O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition is filed to direct the first and second respondents and their men not to harass the petitioner and his family members based on the complaint of the third respondent. 2. Heard Mr.R.M.Mahesh Kumaravel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents 1 & 2/State. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the third respondent, wife of the petitioner, had given a complaint against him and on the basis of the said complaint, the respondents 1 & 2 have been harassing him under the guise of enquiry. He would further submit that the petitioner is working as lecturer in a private college and he has to lead the life with his aged parents and if the harassment is continuing on the basis of the false complaint given by his wife, it cannot be possible for him to lead his life with his parents as well as his employment. He would also submit that the Court can moot out compromise in between the petitioner and the third respondent. 4. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in her argument that the third respondent has not given any complaint and it is not pending before the second respondent and there is no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 question of any harassment. 5. Recording the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (criminal side), this Court is inclined to direct the first and second respondents that even if any complaint has been given by the third respondent or anybody against the petitioner, the enquiry must be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in D.K.Basu case (D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610). Regarding the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to moot out compromise in between the petitioner and the third respondent, it is for the petitioner to move either before the Family Court or elders in the family to make out any possibility of settlements. 6. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of. Sd/ Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District. 2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Devakottai, Sivagangai District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.R.M.Makesh Kumaravel, Advocate, Sr.No.17207 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6537 of 2011 02.06.2011 gcg SMA/08.06.2011/5C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/