Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

V.Nagarajan vs The Superintendent Of Police on 23 February, 2024

Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup

Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup

                                                                   Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2832 of 2024

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED : 23.02.2024

                                                      CORAM

                     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

                                         Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2832 of 2024

                    V.Nagarajan                                             ... Petitioner

                                                        Vs.

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

                    2.The Inspector of Police,
                      Thevaram Police Station,
                      Theni.

                    3.M.Nirosha

                    4.Dhanalatchumi

                    5.Renganathan

                    6.Delhi Ganesh                                          ... Respondents

                    Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
                    Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the first and second respondents to
                    provide adequate police protection to the petitioner and his family
                    members life and limb by considering his representation dated 08.01.2024
                    and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a
                    period that may be stipulated by this Court.


                    _____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                    Page No. 1 of 5
                                                                    Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2832 of 2024

                                   For Petitioner    : Mr.M.Jerin Mathew

                                   For R1 & R2       : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam
                                                       Government Advocate (Crl. Side)


                                                     ORDER

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is a senior citizen. He is alleged to have borrowed a loan from Respondents 3 and 4. After repaying the loan along with interest, the Respondents 3 and 4 are threatening the Petitioner for exorbitant interest which forced the Petitioner to approach the Respondent 2 by filing a complaint. The Respondent 2 enquired into and based on the undertakings given by the Respondents 3 to 6, the enquiry was closed. Now, again, the Respondents 3 to 6 are interfering in possession of the Petitioner’s property. Therefore, the Petitioner was forced to file subsequent complaint on 08.01.2024. The Respondents 1 and 2 had not taken any action on the said complaint. Therefore, he was forced to file this Petition against the Respondents 1 and 2 for a direction to provide police protection to him and his family members.

2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), on instructions, would submit that the second petition is pending enquiry. In the _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 2 of 5 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2832 of 2024 meanwhile, the Respondent 4 had also lodged a complaint against the Petitioner herein which is pending before the Koyambedu Police Station, Chennai.

3. Considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), the Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to conduct enquiry as per the reported rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2014) 2 SSC 1 and Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 2014 (8) SCC 273.

4. Already, an enactment of Tamil Nadu is in force regarding the prohibition of charging of exorbitant interest, for which, the police had to take appropriate action by registering the case if it is found true. Therefore, in the light of the reported rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2014) 2 SSC 1 and Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 2014 (8) SCC 273, the Respondents 1 and 2 shall conduct detailed enquiry. If it is found that the subject matter of the complaint is true, they are directed to register the case under the _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 3 of 5 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2832 of 2024 provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Government and file the same before the Court concerned.

5. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

23.02.2024 Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order JEN To

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

2.The Inspector of Police, Thevaram Police Station, Theni.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 4 of 5 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2832 of 2024 SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

JEN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2832 of 2024 23.02.2024 _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 5 of 5