1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2728 of 2011 Santhana Muthaiah ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District. 2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, S.P.Office Campus, Theni District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Chinnamanur Police Station, Chinnamanur, Theni District. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner in his Civil dispute with others. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manoharan For Respondent : Mr.L.Murugan, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER This petition has been filed to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner in his Civil dispute with others. 2. Heard Mr.Mr.V.Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.Murugan, 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 respondents are interfering with the civil dispute of the petitioner and the petitioner was harassed by the respondents under the guise of enquiry and therefore, the respondents may be directed to follow the norms to be followed for doing interrogation and suitable orders may be passed for not harassing the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that the respondents are not interfering with the civil rights of the petitioner and there is no harassment against the petitioner and if any interrogation is needed by the respondents 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 if any enquiry or interrogation, it would be done in accordance with law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. According to the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, there was no harassment by the respondents against the petitioner. He would also state that there would not be any harassment in future also. 6. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the respondents are not interfering the civil rights of the petitioner and they will not harass the petitioner 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 on the side of the respondents 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 ordered. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( AD ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR vsm To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District. 2.The Inspector of Police,District Crime Branch, S.P.Office Campus, Theni District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Chinnamanur Police Station, Chinnamanur, Theni District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai. DM:2011::MARCH:18::: Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2728 of 2011 02.03.2011 2P:5C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/