Crl.O.P.No.20768 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.07.2025 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Crl.O.P.No.20768 of 2025 Gaffor Shariff ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Superintendent of Police Villupuram District, Villupuram 2. The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Police Station Villupuram 3. A.Liagatali ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner threatening and compelling to execute sale deed infavour of third respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Natarajan For Respondents 1 and 2 : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20768 of 2025 ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner by threatening and compelling to execute a sale deed infavour of third respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that already the private respondent herein had given a complaint against the petitioner before teh Kottakuppam Police Station in which, enquiry was conducted and after enquiry, the same was closed as civil in nature. Thereafter, he has filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram/first respondent for the very same allegations and the same was forwarded to the second respondent police. The second respondent police enquired the same and closed as civil in nature. Once again the third respondent changed the police station and given a complaint before the Marakkanam Police Station and the same was also closed after enquiry as civil in nature. While so, again the third respondent has lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram/first 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20768 of 2025 respondent who in turn has forwarded the same to the second respondent police for enquiry. Once again the second respondent has issued summons to the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition is filed. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents police submitted that based on the complaint only, the respondent police has issued summons to the petitioner and instead of appearing for interrogation, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and also perused the materials available on record. 5. It is seen that on receipt of the complaint given by the third respondent, the second respondent police have issued only summons to the petitioner for enquiry and the petitioner instead of appearing before the second respondent police for interrogation and give his explanation, has approached this Court. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20768 of 2025 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. 7. The petitioner is directed to extend his co-operation to the respondent police for interrogation/enquiry/investigation as the case may. 25.07.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No ksa-2 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20768 of 2025 To 1. The Superintendent of Police Villupuram District, Villupuram 2. The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Police Station Villupuram 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20768 of 2025 P.VELMURUGAN,J. Ksa-2 Crl.O.P.No.20768 of 2025 25.07.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis