1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.17117 of 2011 Petchiammal ...Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District. 2.Mr.Mayilvahanan, The Additional Superintendent of Police, District Police Office,Madurai. 3.The Inspector of Police, Samayanallur Police Station, Madurai District. 4.The Sub Inspector of Police, Koodalpudhur Police Station, Koodalpudhur, Madurai District. ...Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner in the name of enquiry and not to interfere into the civil dispute pending between the petitioner and one Murali, Murugan and Kalanithi in respect of the property situated in Survey No.38/1-A at Vilangudi Village, Madurai District. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sathish Babu For Respondents : Mr.P.Kannithevan, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition has been filed to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner in the name of enquiry and not to interfere into the civil dispute pending between the petitioner and one Murali, Murugan and Kalanithi in respect of the property situated in Survey No.38/1-A at Vilangudi Village, Madurai District. 2. Heard Mr.N.Sathish Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Kannithevan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made an endorsement giving up the claim against the second respondent. The same is recorded. 4. According to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was harassed by the respondents police under the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 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. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that there is no harassment against the petitioner and 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 the enquiry or interrogation would be done in accordance with law. 6. 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 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. 7. Recording the statement of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the respondents 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 respondents 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. 8. With the above direction, this Petition is disposed of. Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(RTI ACT) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. To 1.The Superintendent of Police,Madurai District. 2.The Additional Superintendent of Police, District Police Office,Madurai. 3.The Inspector of Police, Samayanallur Police Station,Madurai District. 4.The Sub Inspector of Police, Koodalpudhur Police Station, Koodalpudhur,Madurai District. 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai. SB 30/12/2011 2P 6C Crl.O.P.(MD).No.17117 of 2011 23.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/