S.Ramalingam vs The Superintendent Of Police on 29 November, 2018

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

S.Ramalingam vs The Superintendent Of Police on 29 November, 2018

Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh

                                                       1

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED :29.11.2018

                                                     CORAM:

                          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

                                          Crl.O.P.No.27748 of 2018


            S.Ramalingam                                                           ...Petitioner


                                                      Vs.

            1.The Superintendent of Police,
            Kanchipuram,
            Kanchipuram District.

            2.The Inspector of Police,
            District Crime Branch/Land Grabbing Cell,
            Kanchipuram,
            Kanchipuram District.

                                                                                ...Respondents


             PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to
             direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner based on the complaint
             given by Mrs.Jagadeeswari, G.Prabakaran, G.Dhanasekar and G.Makesh and
             other than due process of law.
                                    For Petitioner     :Mr.E.Vijay Anand

                                    For R1 & R2        :Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
                                                        Additional Public Prosecutor

                                                     ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondent police not to harass the petitioner.

http://www.judis.nic.in 2

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the property in question is a joint family property and already suits are pending between the parties in O.S.Nos.99, 101 and 127 of 2018. While so, the defacto complainant in the suit has given a complaint before the second respondent police as if the petitioner was grabbing the land. The learned counsel would submit that the dispute is Civil in nature and the second respondent should not interfere in this case.

3. From the available materials, it is seen that the parties are agitating their rights before Competent Civil Court. The second respondent will not have a role to play in a case of this nature. The second respondent is directed not to interfere with the dispute between the parties and the parties shall be relegated to the Civil Court, where the suits are pending.

4. The respondent police is directed not to harass the petitioner in the name of enquiry.

http://www.judis.nic.in 3

5. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.




                                                                                       29.11.2018
            Index            : Yes / No
            Internet         : Yes / No

            ssr



            To

1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch/Land Grabbing Cell, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

http://www.judis.nic.in 4 N.ANAND VENKATESH, J ssr Crl.O.P.No.27748 of 2018 29.11.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court