V.Anuratha, v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 31.07.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.O.P.No.4287 of 2017 V.Anuratha ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep. By:

1.The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

2.The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Two Police Station, Krishnagiri.

3.R.Ramesh ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate protection to the life of the petitioner and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's house.

For Petitioner :

No Appearance For R1 & R2 :

Mr.T.Prabakar, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's house. 2.When the matter was taken up for hearing on 21.07.2020, there was no representation for the petitioner and hence, the matter was adjourned to 31.07.2020. Today i.e., 31.07.2020, there is no representation for the petitioner either in person or by her respective counsel.

3.The petitioner has purchased property and constructed a house at Shanthi Nagar, Krishnagiri. Over this property, there was dispute with the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed civil suit before the learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri in O.S.No.68 of 2016 and she has been regularly appearing before the Principal District Judge, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Krishnagiri to pursue the case. On 09.02.2017, the petitioner due to illness, unable to appear before the Court. On the same day, the learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri dismissed the suit for default. Thereafter, sensing that the 3rd respondent would take advantage of the dismissal of the suit and would create a problem and disturbance to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, the petitioner gave a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri. On 23.02.2017, at about 09.00 a.m., the 3rd respondent along with rowdy elements came to the petitioner's house and removed the CCTV camera and threatened the petitioner to vacate the house. On the same day, the petitioner had given a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 and other officials seeking police protection for herself and her property.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 on instructions from the 2nd respondent submitted that the issue between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent has been settled amicably between them and now they are living peacefully. After 23.02.2017, there have been no other complaint made by the petitioner about any further threat to her and her property.

5.In view of the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court finds that the relief sought for by the petitioner is no more exist. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Insp Cell) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vv2 To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

2.The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Two Police Station, Krishnagiri.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Crl.O.P.No.4287 of 2017 SR(CO) GMY(28/10/2020) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/