R.Shanmugavel v. The Superintendent of Police
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Crl.O.P.No.2997 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 06.02.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.2997 of 2025R.Shanmugavel ... PetitionerVs1. The Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai District.
The Inspector of Police, DCB, Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai District. ... RespondentsCriminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner herein. For Petitioner : Mr.N.VijayarajFor Respondents: Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
O R D E RThis petition has been filed seeking direction to the second respondent police not to harass these petitioner in connection with Crime No. Not known of 2025 pending on the file of second respondent Police.1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.2997 of 20252. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the second respondent police harassed the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.
The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents police submits that on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, petition enquiry was conducted in Current Paper No.100 and the same was closed.
Recording the said submission, this Criminal Original Petition is closed. It is made clear that, since the complaint has been closed, the second respondent shall not call the petitioner under the guise of enquiry and harass him.06.02.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral Citation/Yes/Nokv2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.2997 of 2025To1. The Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai District.2. The Inspector of Police, DCB, Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai District.3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.2997 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.kvCrl.O.P.No.2997 of 202506.02.20254/4
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.