T.Sangetha v. The Superintendent Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.06.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN W.P.(Crl.).No.81 of 2025 T.Sangetha

...Petitioner

Vs.

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

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikovil Police Station, Erode District.

3. T.Vijaya

...Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to provide the police protection to the petitioner by considering the complaint dated 26.04.2025.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.K.C.S.Samy Chinnapillai For Respondents : Dr.C.E.Pratap, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1and R2 ******

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to extent police protection to the petitioner based on her complaint dated 26.04.2025. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a divorcee and was living with her mother, who is the third respondent. The third respondent mother, at the instigation of one Muthukumar, given false complaint against the petitioner and has not allowed the petitioner to enter inside the house. The petitioner's high value articles and documents are inside the house and she wanted to take back the same, for which the third respondent and the said Muthukumar are not allowing. Hence she preferred complaint dated 26.04.2025. Now the petitioner filed this petition for police protection. 2/5

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the petitioner is daughter and the third respondent is her mother. There is dispute between the mother and the daughter, due to which, they both filed complaint against each other. It is seen that there is dispute between the petitioner daughter, who is a divorcee and the third respondent mother regarding the lock opening of the house, in which the petitioner was living. In order to get relief for the dispute, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition (Criminal) impleading the respondent police as party.

Therefore, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. However the petitioner is at liberty to workout her remedy before the competent Court of law.

16.06.2025 cgi Speaking /Non-speaking order To 3/5

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

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikovil Police Station, Erode District.

3. Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

4/5

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

cgi W.P.(Crl.)No.81 of 2025 16.06.2025 5/5