← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/24533/2021disposed of

Chinnappan v. Superintendent Of Police

2022-02-03Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.02.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.OP.No.24533 of 2021 Chinnappan ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2. The Inspector of Police, Anchetty Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

3. John Brittor

4. Madalaimuthu ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to direct the first and second respondents to give adequate police protection to the petitioner to cultivate the Agricultural land bearing Survey No.214/1B, 214/3C, 214/5B, 214/6B situated at Anchatti, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 21.09.2021 on the file of the first and second respondents herein to secure the ends of justice.

For Petitioner :

Mr.K.Nagarajan For Respondent :

Mr.E.Raj Thilak Nos.1 & 2 Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The criminal original petition has been filed to direct the first and second respondents to give adequate police protection to the petitioner to cultivate the Agricultural land bearing Survey No.214/1B, 214/3C, 214/5B, 214/6B situated at Anchatti, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District by considering the

representation of the petitioner dated 21.09.2021 on the file of the first and second respondents.

2.The petitioner, who is a Senior citizen, settled the properties in survey No.214/1B, 214/3C, 214/5B & 214/6B situated in Anchatti, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District, in favour of his three sons on the promise that in his old age, he would be taken care by his sons. Since, they failed to maintain and take care of the petitioner, thereafter, the petitioner gave a representation to RDO and the RDO, by order in Na.No.2291/2020/A1 dated 06.10.2021, cancelled the settlement and restored the property back to the petitioner. As regards the third respondent/ second son, when he came to know about the RDO order, sold the property to the fourth respondent. As per the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007, once the settlement is cancelled and restored back to the owner, any document created subsequent to the cancelled document would no longer be valid. The petitioner gave a representation to the respondent police seeking protection for carrying out his agricultural activities. The respondent police has not taken any action.

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the second respondent would take appropriate action and considering the age of the petitioner and also difficulty faced by him because of his sons, who deserted him, the respondent police would give adequate police protection to the petitioner to carry on his agricultural activities.

4.Recording the same, the criminal original petition is disposed of.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sms To

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

2. The Inspector of Police, Anchetty Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1cc to Mr.K.Nagarajan, Advocate, S.R.No.7543 Crl.OP.No.24533 of 2021 MT(CO) SU(16/03/2022)