Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J
K.Ramalingam – Appellant
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri. – Respondent
Criminal Original Petition
For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Muthusamy
For Respondent(s): Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor
Police enquiry into family property dispute assault to prevent clashes not harassment.
Headnote:First Paragraph: The petition was filed under Section 528 of BNSS seeking directions against police harassment during enquiry into a complaint alleged to be false, amid a pending civil suit over property dispute. The court noted family involvement, with petitioners accused of assaulting their father, and police conducting enquiry to prevent clashes. The court found no harassment by police, requiring petitioners to provide documents and undertaking for peace. Second Paragraph: Issues framed around whether police enquiry constitutes harassment despite civil dispute and family property conflict. Ratio decidendi: Police actions aimed at maintaining peace in shared premises not harassment; petitioners must ensure no injuries occur. Third Paragraph:
Result: Criminal Original Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition against police harassment in false complaint enquiry. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. police enquiry prevents family clashes over property. (Para 3) |
| 3. no harassment found; petition dismissed with conditions. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, seeking direction to the respondent police or his subordinates not to harass the petitioners under the guise of the enquiry on the basis of false complaint lodged by the said Mr.Sankar.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent police under the guise of enquiry on the complaint lodged by Mr.Sankar, have frequently called the petitioners for enquiry, thereby causing harassment. Further, he submitted that despite the civil suit being pending and the complaint being false, the 2nd respondent is continuing to harass the petitioners. Hence, the present petition.
3. Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that the counter complainant is none other than the father of the first petitioner. The first petitioner and others are alleged to have assaulted their father on account of property dispute. It is an admitted position that all of them are residing in the same premises. Further, it is submitted that yet another complaint was made by one of the sons. In order to avoid further clashes and to ensure peace and safety of men and materials, the respondent police are conducting an enquiry and the petitioners were called only for enquiry and not harassed.
4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
5. Since the petitioners have submitted that there is a civil dispute, it is for the petitioners to submit the relevant documents and also give an undertaking that they will not cause any injuries either to each other or to the rival groups.
6. In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel on either side and also taking into account the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the view that the act of the respondent police cannot be termed as harassment. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
