BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED :12.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.22310 of 2025

Prasathkumar ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police,

O/o. The Superintendent of Police,

Thanjavur District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

The Deputy Superintendent of Police office,

Thiruvidaimaruthur Sub Division,

Thanjavur District.

3.The State of Tamilnadu,

Rep.by The Inspector of Police,

Thiruvidaimaruthur Police Station,

Thanjavur District.

4.Rajkumar

5.Mankayarkarasi

6.Sharmila ... Respondents

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to direct the respondents 2 and 3 herein not to interfere with the civil dispute by following the memorandum issued by the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) Tamilnadu dated

09.01.2024.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jameelarasu For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Sakthikumar Government Advocate (Crl. side)

For R4 & R5 : Mr.AN.Ramanathan

ORDER

When the matter was taken up for hearing on 11.12.2025, this Court has observed as follows:

“This original petition is filed seeking direction to the respondents 2 and 3 not to interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 6.

2. Mr.B.Jameelarasu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has exclusively been in possession with respect to the house bearing Door.No.47, Ko.Si.Mani Nagar West and another house property situated in S.No.10/2, New S.No.271/21, situated at V.P.V Backiyalakshmi Nagar, Thepperumalnallur Village, Thiruvidaimaruthur Taluk, Thanjavur District. However, he fairly conceded that the petitioner is not possessing any title over the same. The fourth respondent and the husband of the sixth respondent, namely, Late.Karthikeyan, have together executed an unregistered mortgage deed on 09.01.2025 in favour of the petitioner, after borrowing a sum of Rs.2 Crores from him and thereby, handed over the possession of the portion of the subject property on the day of said mortgage deed itself. From 09.01.2025, the petitioner and his wife have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property.

3. However, the respondents 4 to 6, without settling the amount of Rs.2 Crores, are now trying to disturb the petitioner's possession. Since they were not able to succeed in their initiative, they have lodged a complaint before the third respondent police, pursuant to which, the third respondent has been continuously harassing the petitioner and his wife by frequently requiring them to appear before the police station.

Hence, the petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court .

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 submitted that the petitioner claims that he has exclusively been in possession over the subject property is completely false and at no point of time, the possession of the property was handed over to the petitioner. It is true that the said property was purchased by the fourth respondent from the writ petitioner's wife as a vacant site. Thereafter, they have obtained loan from Canara bank to the tune of Rs.82,00,000/- for constructing apartment consisting five houses. At no point of time, the alleged amount of Rs.2 Crores was borrowed by any of the respondents 4 to 6. The signature of the fourth respondent itself is fabricated. The learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court to the said alleged document, which would reveal that though the date of document was mentioned on 09.01.2025, the same was sealed on 04.08.2025, that itself would prove the lack of prudence on the part of the petitioner's version. He categorically contended that it is only the petitioner and his wife, who actually trespassed and encroached upon the property of the respondents 4 to 6, following which, complaint was lodged and FIR came to be registered in Crime No.773 of

2025 on 09.12.2025.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side)

appearing for the respondent State, fairly conceded that though an FIR was registered i