N.Dhanalakshmi v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,

ORDER The present original petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents police not to harass the petitioner in the guise of investigation.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on a complaint given by the petitioner's brother one Mr.Radhakrishnan, the petitioner was called for an enquiry by the second respondent on 02.02.2026. During the enquiry, the petitioner and the other siblings of the petitioner including the said Radhakrishnan were all enquired. The dispute is with regard to the sharing of jewels of petitioner's mother. It is contended that the petitioner's mother, during her life time, had given some jewels to the petitioner and rest of them to others. The petitioner's mother had passed away on 01.02.2025. Thereafter, a dispute arose between them with regard to the partition of a house of her mother and hence, a false complaint has been given by the petitioner's brother as though the petitioner had taken all the jewels and that the jewels have also to be divided in five portions. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the guise of enquiry, the petitioner has been unnecessarily called for and harassed by the second respondent. The petitioner has sent a representation dated 03.02.2026 to the second respondent police giving all details and also has given an undertaking that the dispute could be resolved between them amicably, failing which they would approach the appropriate civil court for redressal.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the petitioner as well as petitioner's brother Mr.Radhakrishnan and other siblings were all called for enquiry on 02.02.2026. As it is revealed during enquiry that all the siblings have decided to resolve the dispute among themselves and if there is no settlement among them, it has been decided to approach the appropriate civil court for necessary redressal of the dispute. Recording their statement, the complaint of said Mr.Radhakrishnan has been closed and therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is not required for any enquiry.

4.In the light of the submissions made by both sides and in view of the statement made by the learned Government Advocate that the complaint has been closed, nothing further survives in this petition. Recording the statement made by the learned Government Advocate, this criminal original petition is closed. No costs. 04-06-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes vvk To

1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, O/o. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chennai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, J-3 Guindy police station, Chennai District.

3.The Government Advocate (Criminal side), Madras High Court, Chennai. M.NIRMAL KUMAR J. vvk CRL OP No. 4879 of 2026

04-06-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04-06-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR N.Dhanalakshmi Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, O/o. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chennai District. 2.The Inspector of Police, J-3 Guindy Police Station, Chennai District. Respondent(s) PRAYER This petition is preferred under section 528 of BNSS 2023 seeking to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents not to harass the petitioner under the guise of investigation in pursuant to the petitioner's representation on 03.02.2026 and pass any other order as deem fit to under the circumstances of the case. For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Muthamizh Selvakumar For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal side) For R1 To R2