Madras High CourtWP/18131/2024dismissed

R.Prabakaran v. Superintendent Of Police

2025-03-04Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN R.Prabakaran

...Petitioner

Versus

1.Superintendent of Police Erode District, Erode 2.Deputy Superintendent of Police Gobichettipalayam, Erode District 3.The Inspector of Police Kavindapadi Police Station, Kavindapadi, Erode District 4.Manisekaran

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to provide police protection to the petitioner's property situated at Chinnavirasangili Village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode comprised in Re. S. No 203/2 (Old S. No 265A) to an extent of 2.15 Acres at the

time of fencing the property based on the representation of the petitioner dated 19.06.2024.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkateswaran For R1 to R3 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R4 : Mr.M.Karthik

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction, directing the respondents to provide police protection to the petitioner's property situated at Chinnavirasangili Village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode, comprised in Re. S. No 203/2 (Old S. No 265A) to an extent of 2.15 Acres at the time of fencing the property based on the representation of the petitioner dated 19.06.2024.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. The police protection can only be provided for human life and it cannot be granted for property. That apart, there is a civil

dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. According to the fourth respondent, he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property, though the suit for permanent injunction was dismissed in O.S.No.129 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif, Perundurai. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and it is pending. Since, the civil dispute is pending between the petitioner and the fourth respondent, the police protection cannot be granted to the petitioner.

4. In view of the above, the request made by the petitioner cannot be considered. Thus, the writ petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

04.03.2025 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order Lpp

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Lpp To 1.The Superintendent of Police Erode District, Erode 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Gobichettipalayam, Erode District 3.The Inspector of Police Kavindapadi Police Station, Kavindapadi, Erode District 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

04.03.2025