1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:19.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Criminal Original Petition(MD)No.16267 of 2011 Gandhimathi :Petitioner -Vs- State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kottampatti Police Station, Madurai District. :Respondent Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct the respondent not to indulge katapanchayat on the complaint of the petitioner's husband Deivendran. For Petitioner :: Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents :: Mr.P.Kannithevan, GA (Criminal Side) ORDER This petition has been filed to direct the respondent not to indulge katapanchayat on the complaint of the petitioner's husband Deivendran. 2.Heard Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Kannithevan, learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the State. 3.According to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent is indulging in Kattapanchayat on the complaint of the petitioner's husband Deivendran and therefore, the respondent may be directed not to indulge in Kattapanchayat. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that the complaint given by the petitioner's husband is still pending enquiry and the respondent is not doing any Kattapanchayat 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 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 disposed of. Sd/- Assistant Registar / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1. The Inspector of Police Kottampatti Police Station Madurai District. 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Am RP/28.12.2011/2P/3C. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16267 of 2011 19.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/