logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 3557 print Preview print print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : Crl. O.P.(MD). No. 9474 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
Parties : P. Meenakshi Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Commissioner of Police, Madurai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: C. Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, Senior Counsel, S. Vanchinathan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, S. Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor, R3, K. Ganikalyan Rao, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 14-05-2026
Head Note :-
BNSS, 2023 - Section 528 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to direct the 2nd respondent and her officials not to harass the petitioner unnecessarily against law under the guise of enquiry in connection with the complaint given by the 3rd respondent and further direct the 2nd respondent police not to compel the petitioner to produce the minor child before the 2nd respondent police station except in accordance with due process of law.)

1. The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed invoking Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking orders directing the 2nd respondent and her officials not to harass the petitioner unnecessarily or contrary to law under the guise of enquiry in connection with the complaint given by the 3rd respondent, and further directing the 2nd respondent police not to compel the petitioner to produce the minor child before the 2nd respondent police station except in accordance with due process of law.

2. On the earlier occasion, i.e., on 13.05.2026, this Court directed the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, along with their minor child, to appear before this Court today.

3. Today, the petitioner, the 3rd respondent, and the minor child are present before this Court in person, and this Court interacted with them.

4. The 2nd respondent / Investigating Officer, Ms.N.Meena, Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, South Madurai City, is also present before this Court in person.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2, and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, and perused the materials available on record.

6. The 2nd respondent / Investigating Officer submitted that there was no harassment on the part of the police department towards the petitioner. She further submitted that, only for the purpose of completing the enquiry, the petitioner was asked to appear before the police station along with the minor child.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Investigating Officer has no jurisdiction to direct a party to appear along with the minor child.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submitted that the 3rd respondent had lodged a complaint against the petitioner, and that the petitioner was called by the police officer merely for the purpose of enquiry.

9. In view of the above submissions made by the parties, and also the statement of the Investigating Officer that the petitioner had not been harassed, this Court is inclined to issue a direction to the 2nd respondent police to complete the enquiry. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent police is directed to complete the enquiry in accordance with law forthwith, and is further directed not to harass the petitioner.

10. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal