CrlOP(MD)No.11111 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.07.2025 CORAM : THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI CrlOP(MD)No.11111 of 2025 Dhanuskodi ... Petitioner Vs 1.The State rep by the Superintendent of Police, Sivagngai, Sivagangai District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Sivagangai All Women Police Station, Sivagangai District. 3.Sivagamasundari ... Respondents Prayer: This petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS 2023, to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of an enquiry without due process of law, on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 26.06.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Hariharan For R1& R2 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CrlOP(MD)No.11111 of 2025 ORDER The petitioner / a senior citizen has approached this Court that the respondent police are harassing him under the guise of an enquiry based on the complaint of the 3rd respondent that the petitioner is retaining her jewels. 2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent is the petitioner's daughter-in-law. The petitioner's son Prabhu is now working in abroad and their marriage was solemnized on 01.06.2012. Later on due to differences of opinion, the 3rd respondent is living separately from 23.03.2024. She has filed an application seeking maintenance on 29.11.2024, before the Family Court, Sivagangai in MC.No.95 of 2024. While so now she has lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai on 19.05.2025 that the petitioner is retaining her jewels, whereas, in the maintenance application there is no such an averment. 3.He further submits that the 3rd respondent has never shared the household with the petitioner and she was living with her husband 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CrlOP(MD)No.11111 of 2025 separately. However, in order to harass the petitioner, this complaint has been lodged by the 3rd respondent at the instance of her father, who is a Sub Inspector of Police. However, the petitioner has appeared before the respondent police and explained that he has nothing to do with the alleged jewels. Even then the respondent police are harassing the petitioner by calling through the phone for enquiry. According to him the police have called him more than 50 times. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl Side) appearing for the respondent police submits that the 3rd respondent has lodged a complaint as against the petitioner that he is retaining the jewels and therefore, they have called the petitioner for enquiry. 5.This Court considered the rival submissions made. 6.The petitioner's son / the 3rd respondent's husband is working in abroad. The nature of the complaint is that the petitioner is retaining the jewels of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has already filed an application seeking maintenance, however, there is no mention about the jewels alleged to be retained by the petitioner. Therefore, this petition is 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CrlOP(MD)No.11111 of 2025 allowed. The respondent police shall not harass the petitioner. If they found any materials as against the petitioner that he is retaining the jewels they shall take appropriate action. The petitioner shall co-operate for enquiry if required by the respondent police. The respondent police shall refer the matter to the Social Welfare Office for finding out a solution. The petitioner shall advise his son to appear for enquiry. 02.07.2025 DSK To 1.The State rep by the Superintendent of Police, Sivagngai, Sivagangai District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Sivagangai All Women Police Station, Sivagangai District 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CrlOP(MD)No.11111 of 2025 B.PUGALENDHI,J DSK CrlOP(MD)No.11111 of 2025 02.07.2025 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis