Sangeetha v. The Superintendent O Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.09.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.14079 of 2020 R.Sangeetha ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Mayiladudhurai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Mayiladudhurai Police Station, Mayiladudhurai District.

3.Selvarani 4.Baskar 5.Shanthi 6.Manjula

...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to direct the second respondent to provide suitable protection to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : M/s.Greetha Senthilkumar For Respondents 1 & 2: Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor.

O R D E R

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to provide suitable protection to the petitioner.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner fell in love with one Manikandan. Thereafter, on her own stray, she went to the house of the said Manikandan and staying there. While being so, the petitioner's mother, 3rd respondent herein lodged a complaint before the 2nd respondent and the same was registered under "women missing" in Crime No.1271 of 2020. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent and stated that she herself on her own volition, went to the house of one Manikandan and she was never kidnapped by him. Further, the respondents 3 to 6 are being the family https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

members of the petitioner have threatened the petitioner with dire consequences.

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that on the complaint lodged by the 3rd respondent, 2nd respondent registered the case in Crime No.1271 of 2020 under "women missing". Thereafter, the petitioner herein appeared before the 2nd respondent and her statement was recorded on 09.09.2020. The 2nd respondent also advised the respondents 3 to

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioner is not staying in the address mentioned in the petition.

4.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and the the fact that the petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent; made her statement; she went to the house of said Manikandan, on her own volition and she is staying with him, the prayer as such sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted.

Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar Jer To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Mayiladudhurai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Mayiladudhurai Police Station, Mayiladudhurai District.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

Crl.O.P.No.14079 of 2020 SSD(CO) SP(08/10/2020) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/