Krishnaraj v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR W.P.Crl.No.23843 of 2024 S.Mathivanan .. Petitioner

Versus

1. State Rep. by, The Superintendent of Police, North Region, Mettupalayann, Puducherry.

2. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Lawspet Police Station, Pondicherry.

3.Ganesa Naicker .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to give adequate police protection by considering the petitioner's representation dated 18.06.2024.

For Petitioner : M/s.G.Sudha For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Mohandass for R1 & R2 Public Prosecutor(Pondy) Mr.D.Senthil Kumar for R3

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed directing the 2nd respondent to give adequate police protection by considering the petitioner's representation dated 18.06.2024.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner along with others 1/4

have filed a suit in O.S.No.20 of 1990 on the file of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Pondicherry for suit for specific performance and the said suit was decreed in their favour on 21.11.1995. Appeal filed Kamakshi Ammal was also dismissed in A.S.No.96 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (FAC), Puducherry and the second appeal was also abated on 21.03.2022. EP was filed in EP.No.88 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Pondicherry. In pursuance of the same, sale deed was executed and subsequently, they have executed a partition deed on the file of the SRO, Oulgaret. However, when the petitioners went to their lands, some third parties based on the inducement of third respondent are raising disputes. Hence, seeks for police protection.

2. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record. At the out set, this Court is unable to comprehend as to how this petition is maintainable. If at all, there is any obstruction from third parties, it is for the petitioner to approach the Executing Court under Order XXI of CPC for removal of obstructors, instead of doing so, seeking a general direction by way of writ for police protection cannot be granted.

3. Accordingly, I do not find any merits in this petition and this petition stands dismissed. No costs.

2/4

01.09.2025 dhk Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No To

1. The Superintendent of Police, State North Region, Mettupalayann, Puducherry.

2. The Inspector of Police, State Lawspet Police Station, Pondicherry.

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

dhk 3/4

W.P.Crl.No.23843 of 2024 01.09.2025 4/4