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.6529 of 2011 R.Valliammal ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State Rep. by The Director General of Police, Post Box No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 3.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 4.The Inspector of Police, Valliyoor Police Station, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to give suitable direction to the 4th respondent for not to harass the petitioner's son based upon the petitioner's representation dated 27.05.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For Respondents : Ms.S.Prabha, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER This petition has been filed to direct the 4th respondent for not to harass the petitioner's son based upon the petitioner's representation dated 27.05.2011. 2. Heard Mr.R.Anand, 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's son was harassed by the 4th respondent under the guise of enquiry and therefore, the 4th 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's son. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in her argument that in order to detain the petitioner's son under the Goondas Act, he has been called by the respondent police. She would further submit that there was no proposal to detain the petitioner's son under the Goondas Act and there is no harassment. However, the petitioner's son has been listed in the Rowdy H.S. enrolled as 461 and he has got number of cases in various police stations. 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. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the 4th respondent police will not harass the petitioner's son 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's son on the side of the 4th respondent police and they shall 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. 6. With the above direction, this Petition is ordered. Sd/- Vacation Officer/ Deputy Registrar(Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The State Rep. by The Director General of Police, Post Box No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 3.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 4.The Inspector of Police, Valliyoor Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai +One Cc to Mr.R.Anand, Advocate, SR.No.17165 vsm rl/7c – 8.6.2011 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6529 of 2011 02.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/