Venugopal v. The Superintendent Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.02.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL.O.P.No.2005 of 2022 Venugopal ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri.

2. The Inspector of Police, Mathigiri Police Station, Mathigiri.

3. Venugopal ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the first and second respondents to provide police protection to the petitioner for surveying and measuring his Survey No.186/6B, to an extent of 0.051.50 Hec, 1636 Sq.Ft. Situated at Kothakkondappalli Viallge, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District by the revenue authorities as per the petitioner's complaint dated 25.10.2021.

For Petitioner :

Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz For R1 & R2 :

Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the first and second respondents to provide police protection to the petitioner for surveying and measuring his Survey No.186/6B, to an extent of 0.051.50 Hec, 1636 Sq.Ft. Situated at Kothakkondappalli Viallge, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District by the revenue authorities as per the petitioner's complaint dated 25.10.2021.

2.The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner had sent a petition seeking police protection. The petitioner is the owner of the property to survey his property and he needs police protection.

3.The petitioner earlier approached the Revenue Authorities i.e. Thasildar, Hosur to survey the land. The petitioner being the owner of the property submitted the revenue records. On verification of the documents and the revenue records, Thasildar, Hosur directed the Surveyor to survey the property and the petitioner had paid the necessary survey fees and charges for surveying the property. Though necessary fees has been paid, the Revenue Officials as well as the Survey Authorities are unable to conduct survey due to threat. The respondent police had failed to provide police protection.

4.In support of his contention the petitioner had placed reliance on the order of this Court in the case of N.S.Matheswaran Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District and others in Crl.O.P.No.13649 of 2021, in the case of K.Murugesh Reddy Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri in Crl.O.P.No.25049 of 2021 and also the case reported in 2021 SCC Online SC1174.

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the representation of the petitioner has not received from the petitioner or the Revenue officials. If the petitioner appears before the Inspector of Police, Mathigiri Police Station, Mathigiri, along with the copy of the challan paid and other documents, the same would be verified, after ascertaining from the revenue authorities.

6.In view of the same, the petitioner is directed to approach the Thasildar to depute a Surveyor for conducting survey of the property and also to inform the same to the second respondent police, Mathigiri Police Station, who shall provide necessary police protection, after confirming the same with the Revenue authorities.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ah

To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri.

2. The Inspector of Police, Mathigiri Police Station, Mathigiri..

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1cc to Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Advocate SR. No.5927 CRL.O.P.No.2005 of 2022 JPII (CO) PR (21/02/2022)