Radha v. Superintendent Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.02.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Radha D/o. Chinnathambi ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Arni, Tiruvannamalai District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Keezhpennatthur Police Station, Keezhpennatthur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.
4.Annamalai S/o.Chinnathambi 5.Ramesh S/o.Annamalai 6.Ambiga W/o.Ramesh 7.Banumathi W/o.Annamalai ... Respondents 1/4
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to give police protection to petitioner and his family members and to their property situated in S.No.40/4B to an extent of 30 cents in Sirunatthhur Village Account, Keezhpennatthur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District based upon his complaint dated 04.12.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Suresh For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor [R1 to R3] *****
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking for police protection based on the complaint given by the petitioner on 04.12.2023.
2. Heard Mr.M.Suresh, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 to 3.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that there is a case in counter and based on the same, two First Information Reports in Crime Nos.343 and 527 of 2023 are pending before the third respondent. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the earlier complaint/representation given by the petitioner 2/4
seeking for police protection was also closed on the ground that there is already a civil dispute pending between the parties. Subsequently, yet another complaint was given on 04.12.2023 and the same was not acted upon by the respondent police since the earlier complaint was closed and investigation is also pending in the case in counter.
4. In the considered view of this Court, the main grievance of the petitioner seems to be that the rival party is repeatedly causing threat and disturbance to the possession of the property and thereby is misusing the liberty granted to them by virtue of an order of anticipatory bail. If that is the main grievance of the petitioner, it is always left open to the petitioner to seek for cancellation of anticipatory bail on the ground that the accused persons are misusing the liberty. Except giving this clarity, no further orders can be passed in this petition. This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of in the above terms. 13.02.2024 Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order Index :Yes/No gm 3/4
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J gm To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Arni, Tiruvannamalai District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Keezhpennatthur Police Station, Keezhpennatthur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.
4.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
13.02.2024 4/4