1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)NO.9666 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 K.Dhanalakshmi ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. 3.S.Jeyarani ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent dated 16.08.2011 directing appearance of the petitioner for enquiry and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondent police from interfering with the civil dispute which is the subject matter of appeal suit in A.S.No.70 of 2007 on the file of this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioner : Mr.Veerakathiravan For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.B.Pugalendhi, Special Government Pleader For R-3 : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan for Mr.G.Thiruvarutselvan ORDER The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging a notice issued by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District, calling upon her to attend his office for an enquiry in connection with a complaint lodged by the third respondent. 2. Heard Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Pugalendhi, Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.G.R.Swaminathan for Mr.G.Thiruvarutselvan, learned counsel for the third respondent. 3. It is stated in the impugned notice issued by the first respondent that the third respondent had lodged a complaint with the District Superintendent of Police and that the same was forwarded to him for an enquiry. The notice cites Sections 160(1) and 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The objections of the petitioner to the notice are three folded viz., (i) that no accused shall be called upon under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to produce the documents which would incriminate them, in a criminal case; (ii) that there was already a decree for specific performance passed by the Additional District Court, Madurai in O.S.No.567 of 2004 by judgment dated 20.03.2007 on the very same subject matter and hence, the complaint is not maintainable; and (iii) that even the nature of the complaint said to have been lodged by the third respondent is not indicated in the impugned notice. 5. Insofar as the first objection is concerned, the same appears to be sustainable, in view of the settled position of law that no accused shall be compelled to produce any material incriminating himself or herself. (State of Gujarat Vs. Shyamlal reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1251). Therefore, the first respondent cannot call upon the petitioner to produce any material incriminating herself. 6. But the question as to whether, the first respondent is entitled to call the petitioner for an enquiry or not, does not require a detailed consideration, in view of one simple fact. It is admitted that the petitioner already filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.11027 of 2011 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. Upon notice, it was reported by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor before this Court in the said petition that no case had been registered against the petitioner and that only a petition enquiry was pending. Therefore, while disposing of the petition for anticipatory bail, this Court directed the first respondent to follow the procedure contemplated in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR(1997) SC 610. Therefore, the first respondent can certainly call upon the petitioner to appear for an enquiry, in view of the direction issued in the petition for anticipatory bail. 7. Insofar as the contention regarding the decree passed by the Civil Court is concerned, it is seen that one Mr.A.Krishnan filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale in O.S.No.567 of 2004. The petitioner herein was impleaded as the second defendant in that suit. The third respondent herein was the first defendant. The claim in the suit was that the petitioner herein entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for the sale of a property belonging to the third respondent herein, as her power agent. The third respondent denied the execution of the agreement and claimed that the power of attorney was executed for a different purpose. However, the petitioner supported the case of plaintiff and that is how the suit got decreed. As a power agent of the 3rd respondent herein, the petitioner acted against the interests of the 3rd respondent, which resulted in a decree for specific performance. 8. Therefore, the question that arose before the civil Court was not only different but was of a different nature. The issued that arose in the civil suit do not cover those arising in the criminal proceedings. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 9. In Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs. Meenakshi Marwah [(2005) 4 SCC 370] and Kissan Sigh Vs. Gurpal Singh [(2010) 8 SCC 775], the Supreme Court has pointed out that criminal proceedings are independent and there is no bar for proceeding with an enquiry into a complaint. Therefore, the second contention cannot be accepted. 10. Insofar as the third contention is concerned, it is open to the petitioner to appear in the enquiry and request the first respondent to permit her to peruse the copy of the complaint. 11. Therefore, with the above liberty, this writ petition is dismissed. The first respondent shall follow the earlier order passed in the anticipatory bail application. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(A.S) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.Veera Kathiravan, Advocate SR.No.34970 +1cc to The Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.35009 W.P.(MD)NO.9666 OF 2011 and MP(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 10.10.2011 vsm PA/31.10.2011/3P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/