S.Nagaraj v. The Superintendent Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN S.Nagaraj ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police, The office of the Superintendent, Ranipet, Ranipet District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Arcodu Inspector of Police Office, Arcodu District.

3. The Sub Inspector of Police, Arcodu Sub Inspector of Police Office, Arcodu District.

4. Udhayakumar

5. Mohan

6. Muniyandi ... Respondents Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the 2nd respondent police to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner, his family members and also give protection to the properties

situated in No.64/4B2, Keezhvisharam, Chennai to Bangalore Bypass Road Opposite to A2B Hotel, Ranipet District, on the basis of the complaint dated 29.01.2025 given by the petitioner herein.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Balamurugan For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) (for R1 to R3)

ORDER

This petition has been filed to direct the second respondent Police to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner, his family members, and also give protection to the properties situated in No. 64/4B2, Keezhvisharam, Chennai to Bangalore Bypass Road, Opposite to A2B Hotel, Ranipet District, on the basis of the complaint dated 29.01.2025 given by the petitioner herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the first to third respondents and perused the materials available on record.

3. It is seen that the petitioner owned the property situated in No.64/4B2, Keezhvisharam, Chennai to Bangalore Bypass Road, Opposite to A2B Hotel, Ranipet District. While that being so, the fourth to sixth respondents were disturbing the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the property and also trespassed into the property. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint against them and an FIR has been registered in Crime No. 272 of 2024 on 30.04.2024 on the file of the second respondent. Now, the petitioner seeks police protection for the petitioner, his family members, and also seeks protection for the property. The police protection cannot be granted to take possession or restore the possession of the property. Further, it is seen that the dispute between the petitioner and the fourth to sixth respondents is civil in nature, in respect of the property. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have approached the civil Court for appropriate relief. Hence, the direction sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted and it is liable to be dismissed.

4. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 06.03.2025

Index : Yes/No : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order kv To

1. The Superintendent of Police, The office of the Superintendent, Ranipet, Ranipet District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Arcodu Inspector of Police Office, Arcodu District.

3. The Sub Inspector of Police, Arcodu Sub Inspector of Police Office, Arcodu District.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, kv 06.03.2025