Thillairaj vs. The State Of Tamil Nadu
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Thillairaj and Vishnu Raj, filed a criminal original petition seeking a direction to the Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police, Madurai District, to refrain from harassing them under the guise of an inquiry based on a complaint by a third respondent, Mohammed. The petitioners alleged a dispute with Mohammed regarding an agreement for scrap disposal. They claimed Mohammed lodged a false complaint, and the police, taking advantage of it, were frequently calling them and insisting on payment of GST. The petitioners had submitted a representation on March 3, 2025, which remained unconsidered. The police, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, stated that the petitioners were called for inquiry based on the complaint and their representation was under consideration. They assured that the complaint and the representation would be inquired into and disposed of according to law.
Held
The Court held that the police authorities (respondents 1 and 2) had indeed called the petitioners for an inquiry based on the complaint lodged by the third respondent. The Court also noted the petitioners' submission that they were being harassed and that their representation dated March 3, 2025, had not been considered. Recording the submission of the Additional Public Prosecutor that the representation was under consideration, the Court directed the Inspector of Police (2nd respondent) to consider the petitioners' representation dated March 3, 2025, along with the complaint lodged by the third respondent. The inquiry was to be conducted and the matter disposed of in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of the order. The Court did not explicitly decide on the 'falsity' of the complaint but focused on ensuring a proper inquiry and disposal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the police authorities (respondents 1 and 2) are harassing the petitioners in the name of an inquiry based on a complaint by the third respondent, thereby violating their rights? (Question of fact and law). Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the police were harassing them based on a false complaint by the third respondent and were insisting on GST payments. They relied on their representation dated March 3, 2025, which had not been considered. Revenue/State's contention: The Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioners were called for an inquiry based on the third respondent's complaint. They acknowledged receiving the petitioners' representation dated March 3, 2025, and stated it was under consideration. They undertook to conduct an inquiry into both the complaint and the representation and dispose of the matter in accordance with law.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioners to direct the respondents no.1 and 2 not to harass the petitioners in the name of enquiry on the false complaint given by the 3rd respondent.
According to the petitioners, there is a dispute between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent in respect of agreement for scrap disposal to sell the machinery and scrap items lying in SIDCO Industrial Estate, Kappalur, Madurai. While so, suppressing the material facts, the 3rd respondent lodged a false complaint against the petitioners and taking advantage of the same, the 2nd respondent frequently called the petitioners and insisted to pay GSTR to the Government. Therefore, they sent a representation dated 03.03.2025, but the same has not been considered.
Hence this petition.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents no.1 and 2 would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the 3rd respondent, they called the petitioners for enquiry and the petitioners have also sent a representation dated _____________ Page No. 2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2025 and the same is under consideration. Therefore, they will conduct enquiry on the compliant of the 3rd respondent as well as the petitioner's representation and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
Considering the prayer sought for in this petition, this Court without even issuing notice to the 3rd respondent inclined to pass orders in this petition.
According to the petitioners, the respondents no.1 and 2 harassed the petitioners based on the false complaint lodged by the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent has also admitted the complaint lodged by the 3rd respondent as against the petitioners and they called the petitioners for enquiry purpose. Therefore, recording the above said submissions of the 2nd respondent, this Court directs the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 03.03.2025 along with the complaint lodged by the 3rd respondent and conduct enquiry and dispose of the same in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of this order. _____________ Page No. 3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
With the above said observation and direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
2025 NCC : Yes/No Index :Yes / No Internet :Yes / No Mac To 1. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District @ Madurai.
The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Town Police Station, Thirumangalam, Madurai District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. _____________ Page No. 4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis P.DHANABAL, J. Mac CRL. OP(MD) No.6502 of 2025 08.04.2025 _____________ Page No. 5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.