G. Perumalraj vs The District Superintendent of Police RMFW plus 4RP, Thaiyar Kullam, Kanchipuram

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 30420

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J
G. Perumalraj – Appellant
Versus
The District Superintendent of Police RMFW plus 4RP, Thaiyar Kullam, Kanchipuram – Respondent
CRL OP No. 8830 of 2026

Important Points

Petition against police harassment disposed after complaint closure and referral to social welfare.

Subject

Criminal Law - Quashing/Preventive Relief

Act Referred

BNSS, 2023: S.528

Headnote

First Paragraph: The petition was filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking directions to prevent police harassment during enquiry. Essential facts involve a family dispute where the petitioner, as father-in-law, sought protection amid a husband-wife conflict. The court noted the Additional Public Prosecutor's submission that the complaint was closed and parties referred to Social Welfare Department. Second Paragraph: The sole issue was whether to restrain police enquiry. The court's reasoning relied on the closure of the complaint and referral to welfare services, rendering further intervention unnecessary. Last Paragraph: The criminal original petition is disposed of.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.Karpagam
For the Respondents: Mr.LEONARD ARUL JOSEPH SELVAM Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 and R2

Table of Content
1. petition seeks restraint on police harassment in family dispute. (Para 1)
2. complaint closed, parties referred to welfare. (Para 2)

PRAYER: The criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to harass the petitioner and his family members under the guise of enquiry and pass such further or other orders.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Karpagam For Respondent(s): Mr.LEONARD ARUL JOSEPH SELVAM Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 and R2

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed to to direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to harass the petitioner and his family members under the guise of enquiry.

2.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the dispute is between the husband and wife and the petitioner is father-in-law. Now, the complaint has been closed and the parties have been referred to go before the Social Welfare Department.

3.In view of the above, the criminal original petition is disposed of.