S.Thabasum v. The Superintendent Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN W.P.Crl.No. 240 of 2025 S.Thabasum ... Petitioner Vs.
1.
The Superintendent of Police, 2.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, 3.
The Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
4.
Sameer.
... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents-Police to provide adequate Police protection to the petitioner to run her business in the property situated at No.2/15A, AVS Colony, Matham Agraharam Village, Hosur Town, Krishnagiri District. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef For Respondents : Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 to R3 1/6
O R D E R
The Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate Police protection to the petitioner to run her business in the property situated at No.2/15A, AVS Colony, Matham Agraharam Village, Hosur Town,
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the fourth respondent herein got married in the year 2002 and due to difference of opinion, they are living separately. The petitioner is running a scrap factory in the subject land due to matrimonial dispute and in order to grab the factory from the petitioner, the fourth respondent threatened the petitioner to vacate the factory claiming that it was his factory. While that being so, the father of the fourth respondent had given a false complaint against the petitioner before the third respondentPolice and the same was registered as Crime No.90 of 2025. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.13865 of 2025 before this Court seeking to quash the FIR and the said Crl.O.P was dismissed on 03.06.2025. Though the fourth respondent and his father 2/6
are frequently entering into petitioner's factory and making unwanted quarrel, the petitioner has lodged a complaint before respondents 1 to 3/Police for taking necessary action against the fourth respondent and others and also for Police protection, but till date, no action has been taken and hence, the present petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and perused the materials available on record.
4. Since no adverse order is being passed against the fourth respondent, notice to the fourth respondent is hereby dispensed with.
5. On a reading of the entire records, it is seen that there is a dispute between the family members regarding the running of business, which is purely civil in nature. A family dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent, had been given a criminal colour by lodging complaints before the Police. Already, a case in Crime No.90 of 2025 is pending against the petitioner. If at all the petitioner has got any right 3/6
over the said property, she has to approach the Civil Court for appropriate remedy. Instead of approaching the Civil Court, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking Police protection to run her business. Therefore, this Court is unable to entertain this petition, since it is purely civil in nature and the Court cannot direct the Police to give protection to one party when there is rival claim over the title of the property in dispute.
6. Therefore, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
10.07.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No ms 4/6
To 1.
The Superintendent of Police, 2.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, 3.
The Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
4.
The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
5/6
P.VELMURUGAN, J ms 10.07.2025 6/6