Crl.O.P(MD).No.5572 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 26.03.2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Crl.O.P(MD).No.5572 of 2025 Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep., by The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam North Police Station, Virudhunagar District. 3.The Bank Manager, Rajapalayam Co-operative Housing Society Branch, Rajapalayam Town, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District. .. Respondents Prayer : Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS to direct the second respondent police not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry without due process of law. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rajaboopathy For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.side) For R3 : Mr.R.Saravanan 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.5572 of 2025 ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry without due process of law. 2. According to the petitioner, he pledged his jewels in the third respondent Bank. While so, the third respondent lodged a complaint as against him before the second respondent alleging that he pledged spurious gold. Therefore, the second respondent taking advantage of the same frequently called the petitioner under the guise of enquiry. In fact, no such occurrence was happened and the petitioner only pledged his gold ornaments, inspite of that, the second respondent is harassing the petitioner. Therefore, he filed this petition. 3. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, would submit that based on the complaint given by the third respondent, the respondent-police called the petitioner for enquiry. At the time of enquiry, the petitioner assured to 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.5572 of 2025 redeem the jewels pledged by him. Without redeeming the jewels, he filed this petition. He further would submit that the second respondent has not harassed the petitioner and he only called the petitioner for enquiry purpose, based on the complaint given by the third respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that the petitioner pledged the jewels before the society and thereafter, the third respondent came to know about the jewels that they are spurious gold. Therefore, he lodged a complaint before the second respondent. 5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available. 6. The prayer in this petition is that to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry. According to the second respondent, the third respondent lodged a complaint as against the petitioner for pledging spurious gold. Therefore, he called the petitioner for enquiry, apart from that, he has not harassed the petitioner as alleged by the petitioner. 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.5572 of 2025 7. Therefore, recording the aforesaid submission of the second respondent that he has not harassed the petitioner and the petitioner was called only for enquiry, based on the complaint given by the third respondent, this Criminal Original Petition is closed. 26.03.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Rmk To: 1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam North Police Station, Virudhunagar District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.5572 of 2025 P. DHANABAL ,J. Rmk Crl.O.P(MD).No.5572 of 2025 26.03.2025 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis