Sumathi v. The Superintendent Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.07.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Sumathi

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District.

Cuddalore - 607001.

2. The Inspector of Police, Thiruppadiripuliyur Police Station, Cuddalore - 607002

3. Sri Arumugham Pathar, No.4, Erumaraja Agraharam, Cuddalore - 607002.

...Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and second respondents to grant protection to the petitioner for demolishing the eastern and southern walls of the petitioner's property, in a house bearing Door No.4, Erumaraja Agraharam Street, bearing S.No.195, Ward No.4, Block No.4, in Thiruppadiripuliyur, Cuddalore-607002, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 17.04.2025.

1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Baskar For Respondents : Dr.C.E.Pratap Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 & R2 ******

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondents 1 and 2 to grant protection to the petitioner for demolishing the eastern and southern walls of the petitioner's property.

According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner's father obtained decree in his favour against the third respondent with regard to the title over the disputed wall situated in the petitioner's property. Now the third respondent is troubling the petitioner for demolishing the disputed wall. Therefore the petitioner seeks police protection to demolish the wall.

It is seen that the petitioner's father filed a suit in O.S.No.41 of 2000 for declaration of title and for permanent injunction against the third respondent and got decree in his favour. Now the petitioner 2/4

wants to construct a house after demolishing the disputed compound wall. But the third respondent is creating troubles for demolishing the compound wall. Therefore the petitioner seeks police protection. This Court is of the view that when the petitioner's father got Civil Court decree in his favour, the petitioner can always approach the civil Court and seek the relief. Therefore this Court is not inclined to grant police protection.

Accordingly this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Civil Court, where her father got decree in his favour.

08.07.2025 cgi Speaking /Non-speaking order To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District. Cuddalore - 607001.

2. The Inspector of Police, Thiruppadiripuliyur Police Stanton, Cuddalore - 607002.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

3/4

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

cgi W.P.(Crl.)No.189 of 2025 08.07.2025 4/4