Crl.OP.(MD)No.1776 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 12.03.2021

DELIVERED ON : 30.03.2021

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

Crl.OP.(MD)No.1776 of 2021

L.N.Nithyanantham

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The State Represented by

The Superintendent of Police,

Pudukkottai District,

District Police Office,

Thirumayam Road,

Pudukkottai.

2.Inspector of Police,

District Crime Branch,

Pudukkottai District,

District Police Office,

Thirumayam Road,

Pudukkottai.

3.Dr.S.Ramadoss, M.B.B.S.,

Child Specialist,

Vaitheeswara Children Hospital,

New Street, Thirukornam (Post),

Pudukkottai.

... Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the second respondent police

and their subordinates not to harass the petitioner for the purpose

of enforcing the pre-drafted compromise deed dated 02.06.2020.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.P.Chandrasekaran

For Respondents

:

Mr.A.Robinson,

Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

for R1 and R2

Mr.K.Balasundaram for R3

ORDER

The case of the petitioner in nutshell.

The petitioner's father borrowed money from the third

respondent Dr.S.Ramadoss during 2014 to meet his family and business

1/6

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Crl.OP.(MD)No.1776 of 2021

expenses. Subsequently, he died of cancer in the year 2016. The

petitioner also borrowed money from the third respondent to meet his

business and family expenses. Whileso, the third respondent lodged

a false complaint with the Inspector of Police, District Crime

Branch, Pudukottai stating that the petitioner received a sum of

Rs.1,50,00,000/- from the third respondent promising the latter that

he would secure a job for his daughter-in-law. Based on this

complaint, the second respondent called the petitioner to her office

on 02.06.2020 for an enquiry and harassed him. He was also

threatened by the second respondent with dire consequences and the

entire episode was video graphed on the latter's (second respondent)

instructions. The petitioner was also forced to sign a compromise

deed on 02.06.2020, which was pre-drafted to suit the convenience of

Dr.S.Ramadoss.

Two witnesses by names D.Radhakrishnan and

S.P.Karuppaiah signed the same at District Crime Branch Office,

Pudukottai. According to the petitioner, the police had assumed

jurisdiction over a civil dispute and also forced the petitioner to

sign a pre-drafted compromise deed. The representation submitted by

the petitioner to the first respondent, the Superintendent of

Police, District Crime Branch in Ref.No.1591/8/7/2020 did not evoke

any response. Due to the pressure exerted by the third respondent,

the petitioner sent a Demand Draft for Rs.8 lacs on 13.08.2020.

Subsequently, the second respondent once again called the petitioner

from her mobile phone number 9345215537 at 10.53 AM and threatened

the petitioner to settle the amount due and payable to the third

respondent. He has therefore, filed the present petition seeking

for a direction to the second respondent not to harass the

petitioner.

2. The second respondent filed a status report with the

following contentions.

(i) The third respondent lodged a complaint against the

petitioner with the first respondent, the Superintendent of Police,

District Crime Branch stating that the petitioner received a sum of

Rs.1,52,00,000/- promising him that he (petitioner) would secure a

Government job for his daughter-in-law. However, he did not secure

his daughter-in-law any Government job and also did not return the

money. The said complaint was forwarded to the second respondent

vide

proceedings

of

the

first

respondent

in

Na.Ka.No.260/SP/PDK/GDP/2020 dated 01.06.2020.

(ii) The second respondent took appropriate action keeping in

mind the guidelines issued in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Ut