Thiruselvam vs. The Superintendent Of Police

Facts

The petitioners, Thiruselvam and Manikaselvi, filed a criminal original petition seeking a direction to the police respondents not to harass them during an investigation. The petitioners claimed they purchased jewels from Lalitha Jewellery, receiving only estimates without bills. They insisted on bills with GST, which allegedly led to a false complaint against them for taking jewels and not returning them. The respondent police, based on a complaint by the fourth respondent, conducted an inquiry and found that the petitioners had indeed taken jewels and not returned them.

Held

The Court considered the rival submissions and disposed of the criminal original petition. The Court directed the petitioners to appear before the respondent police for inquiry on 17.04.2024. The Court further directed that the inquiry should not be kept pending for more than four weeks. A decision, either way, was to be taken by the respondent police within two weeks from the date of the petitioners' appearance. Crucially, the Court stated that the respondent police were not expected to harass the petitioners during the course of the inquiry. The specific issue of GST or the validity of bills was not directly decided by the court, but the inquiry into the alleged non-return of jewels was permitted to proceed under specific conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent police are harassing the petitioners under the guise of investigation, concerning the alleged non-return of jewels purchased from Lalitha Jewellery. Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that they purchased jewels from Lalitha Jewellery, but were only provided with estimates and not proper bills with GST. They alleged that a false complaint was filed against them when they insisted on receiving bills with GST. They sought a direction to prevent harassment by the police during the investigation. Revenue's contention: The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that based on a complaint lodged by the fourth respondent, the police conducted an inquiry and found that the petitioners had taken jewels from the shop and had not returned them.