1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL.O.P.(MD).No.14995 of 2011 Rama Devi : Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Pudukkottai District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Karaiyur Police Station, Pudukkottai District. 3.Alagu 4.Lakshmi 5.Shenbagavillan : Respondents PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner. For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents : Mrs.S.Prabha, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for RR1 and 2 Mr.S.Muthalraj, for RR3 to 5 O R D E R This petition has been filed to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner. 2. No representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2/State and Mr.S.Muthalraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 5. 3. According to the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), there is no harassment as alleged by the petitioner from the side of the police. She would also submit that the respondents 1 and 2 will follow the principles laid in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 would submit in his argument that there is a Habeas Corpus Petition pending before this Court, in which the petitioner has been shown as detenu and instead of appearing before the said Court, the petitioner has come forward with this petition and it is clearly abuse of process of law. He would further submit that the prayer as asked for against the respondents 3 to 5 is not permissible ,because they are not harassing the petitioner. Therefore, he would request the Court for passing suitable orders. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. I could see that the petitioner, who has complained against the police stating that she was harassed and she has not appeared before this Court through her counsel and no representation has been put forth on her behalf. However, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that there is no harassment from the police side. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 has also submitted that when there is no harassment from R3 to R5, this application is not maintainable. 6. Considering the submissions made on either side, I could see that there is no harassment as alleged by the petitioner from the side of the respondents 3 to 5 and therefore, they need not be directed not to harass the petitioner. However, the respondents 1 and 2 are concerned, they are directed to follow the principles laid down in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610, even in case of making an enquiry with the petitioner or to secure her and produce her before this Court in the Habeas Corpus Petition. 7. With the above direction, this Petition is closed to that extend only and the petition against R3 to R5, is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Pudukkottai District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Karaiyur Police Station, Pudukkottai District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1CC TO MR.NA.PALANIYANDI, ADVOCATE SR.40936 Vsm SR : 01.12.2011 : 2p/5c CRL.O.P.(MD).No.14995 of 2011 22.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/