1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL.O.P.(MD)No.16036 of 2011 1.T.Ramesh 2.R.Jeyapriya : Petitioners Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Aruppukottai Taluk Police Station, Aruppukottai,Virudhunagar District. : Respondent PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioners by frequently summoning him to appear before the police station under the guise of enquiry for matrimonial life. For Petitioners : Mr.A.D.Ganesh Moorthi For Respondent : Mr.P.Kannithevan, Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed to direct the respondent not to harass the petitioners by frequently summoning him to appear before the police station under the guise of enquiry for matrimonial life. 2. Heard Mr.A.D.Ganesh Moorthi learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Kannithevan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. According to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners have married as per Section 7(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also produced a certificate to that effect. He would further submit that the petitioners were harassed by the respondent police under the guise of enquiry and therefore, the respondent may be directed to follow the norms for doing interrogation and suitable orders may be passed for not harassing the petitioners. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that there is no harassment against the petitioners and if any interrogation is needed by the respondent against the petitioners, 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. In view of the facts that the petitioners are major and they have married as per Section 7 (A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the respondent police need not harass them under the guise of enquiry. Considering the submissions made on both sides, the police is entitled to investigate the matter by interrogating the petitioners in proper manner. According to the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, there was no harassment done by the police. He would also state that there will https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 closed. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR(WRITS) /TRUE COPY/ ASST REGISTRAR GSR To 1.The Inspector of Police, Aruppukottai Taluk Police Station, Aruppukottai,Virudhunagar District. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. 1cc To Mr.A.D.Ganeshamoorthy, Advocate vide SR No.43555 SB:20/12/2011 2P 4C CRL.O.P.(MD)No.16036 of 2011 13.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/