T.Muthu v. The Deputy Superintendent Of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:06.04.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.No.7730 of 2016 T.Muthu .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore Range, Cuddalore.

2.The Inspector of Police, Reddichavady Police, Cuddalore District.

.. Respondents Prayer:- This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directing the respondents to provide protection to the petitioner on the basis of the requisition of the petitioner dated 25.02.2016.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.P.G.Thiyagu For Respondents: Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for direction, directing the respondents to provide protection to the petitioner on the basis of the requisition of the petitioner dated 25.02.2016.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and his friend were doing the business in the name and style of "Thamilan Cable Vision" for the past three years, after getting licence from Tamil nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, had licensed in Kanadakadu of Cuddalore District. He further submitted that the petitioner obtained a handloan for a sum of Rs.40,000/-from one Prabu, who is none other than the friend of the petitioner. Since the petitioner has not repaid the same, the said Prabu made a life threat to the petitioner. Therefore, he gave a representation to the respondent police on 25.02.2016 to provide police protection, but the respondent police has not taken any steps to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

provide police protection. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with this petition for the above stated relief.

3. At this juncture the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions would submit that on receipt of the representation, the petitioner was called for enquiry but he has not co-operated for enquiry to verify whether there is any real threat. He further submitted that if the petitioner co-operate with the enquiry, they will pass appropriate orders.

4. Considered the rival submissions made by both sides and perused the typed set of papers.

5. Even though representation was given by the petitioner to the respondent police on 25.02.2016, no steps have been taken by the respondent police to provide police protection. Hence, I am of the view that it is a fit case for giving direction to the respondent police to consider the representation of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before the second respondent on 11.04.2016 for enquiry and the second respondent is also directed to enquire the matter and provide police protection in accordance with law, if necessary. 6.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction.

kkd Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore Range, Cuddalore.

2.The Inspector of Police, Reddichavady Police, Cuddalore District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+ 1 cc to Mr.S.P.G.Thiyagu, Advocate Sr 22179 KR/12/4/16 Crl.O.P.No.7730 of 2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/