Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

K.Pitchai Vs state Rep by

K.Pitchai vs state Rep by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Jan 30, 2026
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1414228

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CRL OP/1934/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

K.Pitchai

Respondent

state Rep by

Excerpt

.....of the bharatiya nagarik suraksha sanhita to direct the 2nd respondent viz., the inspector of police t-3, pallavaram police station, chennai to not to harass the 2nd petitioner in any manner, based on the complaint lodged against the 1st petitioner except by due process of law. for petitioners: mr.ramesh kumar choprafor respondents: mr.s.santhosh government advocate (criminal side) page1 of 4orderthe present criminal original petition has been filed seeking a direction to the second respondent police not to harass the second petitioner under the guise of enquiry.2. the case of the petitioners is that under the pretext of conducting an enquiry in connection with the existing civil dispute with one sampath, the second respondent police is unnecessarily harassing the second petitioner.3. learned government advocate (criminal side), on instructions,submitted that based on the complaint given against the petitioners, the respondent police are conducting an enquiry in c.s.r.no.1669 of 2025 and that the petitioners were called only for enquiry and were not harassed during the enquiry.4. such being the position, it is for the investigating agency to issueappropriate notice to the petitioner under section 35(3) of bnss for enquiry and on receipt of such notice, the petitioners shall appear for enquiry and co- operate in the investigation. it is made clear that the petitioners shall not be harassed during the course of enquiry. if any cognizable offence is made out, the second respondent police shall register a first information report and page2 of 4proceed in accordance with law.5. accordingly, this criminal original petition stands disposed of. neutral citation: yes/no mrn to1. the commissioner of police,2. the inspector of police,3. the public prosecutor, high court of madras. page3 of 4a.d.jagadish chandira, j.mrn page4 of 4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30-01-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

1. K.Pitchai

2. Dr.P.Pauline Elizabeth ..Petitioners Vs

1. State represented by The Commissioner of Police,

2. State, represented by

The Inspector of Police, ..Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to direct the 2nd Respondent viz., the Inspector of Police T-3, Pallavaram Police Station, Chennai to not to harass the 2nd petitioner in any manner, based on the Complaint lodged against the 1st Petitioner except by due Process of law. For Petitioners: Mr.Ramesh Kumar Chopra

For Respondents: Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Criminal Side) Page1 of 4

ORDER

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the second respondent police not to harass the second petitioner under the guise of enquiry.

2. The case of the petitioners is that under the pretext of conducting an enquiry in connection with the existing civil dispute with one Sampath, the second respondent Police is unnecessarily harassing the second petitioner.

3. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), on instructions,

submitted that based on the complaint given against the petitioners, the respondent Police are conducting an enquiry in C.S.R.No.1669 of 2025 and that the petitioners were called only for enquiry and were not harassed during the enquiry.

4. Such being the position, it is for the Investigating Agency to issue

appropriate notice to the petitioner under Section 35(3) of BNSS for enquiry and on receipt of such notice, the petitioners shall appear for enquiry and co- operate in the investigation. It is made clear that the petitioners shall not be harassed during the course of enquiry. If any cognizable offence is made out, the second respondent Police shall register a First Information Report and Page2 of 4

proceed in accordance with law.

5. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. Neutral Citation: Yes/No MRN To

1. The Commissioner of Police,

2. The Inspector of Police,

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Page3 of 4

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

MRN Page4 of 4

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties K.Pitchai vs state Rep by Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice a.D.Jagadish Chandira

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales