CRL OP No. 6946 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP No. 6946 of 2026 S.Mahalakshmi ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The State of Tamilnadu rep.by, The Director General of Police, No.1, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 04. 2.The State represented by, The Commissioner of Police, (Greater Chennai Police) No.132, EVK Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai 07. 3.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, P1, Pulianthope Police Station, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition is field under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., to issue appropriate directions to the third respondent police not to harass the petitioner and her family members. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.D.Ilayaraja For Respondent(s): Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 6946 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 ORDER The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the third respondent not to harass the petitioner and her family members under the guise of enquiry. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent police without any prior intimation, came to his residence and knocked on the doors, thereby causing embarrassment to the petitioner and damaging her reputation among the public and neighbours. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner’s husband has 32 previous cases, he is a history- sheeted rowdy and therefore, the respondents police had gone to the residence and enquired. 4. It is seen that the petitioner’s husband is a history-sheeter and several criminal cases are pending against him. In order to secure his presence and to ascertain his whereabouts and movements, the respondents police have conducted enquiry, which is now alleged to be harassment. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 6946 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the fact that the petitioner’s husband is a history-sheeter. In such circumstances, the action of the respondents police in verifying his movements and conducting enquiry cannot be construed as harassment, particularly in view of the law and order requirements. 6. This Court finds that the enquiry conducted by the respondent police is within the bounds of law and does not warrant interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, the respondents police are directed to conduct the enquiry strictly in accordance with law and without causing undue harassment to the petitioner. 17-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No VKR https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 6946 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. VKR To 1. The Director General of Police, No.1, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 04. 2.The Commissioner of Police, (Greater Chennai Police) No.132, EVK Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai 07. 3.The Inspector of Police, P1, Pulianthope Police Station, Chennai. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRL OP No. 6946 of 2026 17-03-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis