SUNDARAMMAL Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the wife of one C. Mani. On the ground that both the petitioner and her husband were frequently harassed by the Inspector of Police, Thirunagar Poilce Station. They filed Criminal O.P. No. 18861 of 2000 seeking for a direction to the Inspector of Police, Thirunagar Police Station, District Crime Branch, Economic Offence Wing and P.C.R. Wing, Madurai not to harass the petitioner without due process of law. The said petition was disposed of by order dated 13.11.2000 with a direction that the respondent shall not harass the petitioner. While passing the order, the learned Judge had, in fact, observed that the learned Public Prosecutor was not in a position to assist the Court as to whether any case was pending against the petitioner and her husband, though sufficient time was granted.

(2.) AS the harassment continued, the petitioner and her husband again filed Crl. O.P. No. 24007 of 2001 for grant of anticipatory bail. It was represented by the respondent, the Inspector of Police (Crimes), Thirunagar Police Station, that the petitioner herein was not an accused in the said case. Recording the said statement, by order dated 26.11.2001, this Court dismissed the petition as unnecessary insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Insofar as the petition filed by the husband of the petitioner, the petition was dismissed.

(3.) IN spite of the same, complaining that the harassment continued, the petitioner again sent a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Madurai, on 31.3.2002 with a request that appropriate directions may be issued to the Inspector of Police, Thirunagar Police Station. As the said request has not been considered and the harassment was persistent both for the petitioner and her husband, her husband filed another application in Crl. O.P. No. 2938 of 2003 for grant of anticipatory bail. It was represented by the learned Government Advocate to the Court that there was no case registered against the husband of the petitioner and no petition was pending enquiry and on the basis of the said statement, the petition was dismissed on 3.2.2003. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the above, harassment continued and frequently the third respondent police knocked the door of the petitioner with the threat of harassment. Hence, this petition.