Selvam v. The State Rep By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11-08-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

1. Selvam S/o.Chinnaraj Goundar, Eggour (Vill) and (P.O), Uthangarai (T.K), Krishnagiri District.

Appellant(s) Vs

1. The State Rep by its The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District.

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

3.Jayamani W/o.Seenivasan 4.Sankar S/o.Seenivasan 5.Manigandan S/o.Seenivasan

6.Sivalingam S/o.Chinna Gounder, R3 ot R5 are residing at Eggur Village and Post, Uthangarai Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

Respondent(s) PRAYER To directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider the petitioners representation dated 27.05.2025 and provide necessary police protection to the petitioner for life threatening by the respondents 3 to 6 to the petitioner. For Appellant(s):

Mr. P.M.Jayachandran For Respondent:

Mr.R.Vinoth Raja, GA For R1 and R2

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking for a direction directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.05.2025 and provide necessary police protection to the petitioner due to life threatening by the respondents 3 to 6 to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner seeks police protection on the allegation that the respondents 3 to 6 are making a life threat to the petitioner in enjoying the

property.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already filed a suit in OS.No.28 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthangarai, wherein, in IA.No.1 of 2023 is filed for injunction restraining the respondents 3 to 6 from obstructing the usage of piplelines and cart pathway in the 2nd schedule of the suit property. It is his further contention that even after getting interim order on 27.03.2025 from the the trial court, the private respondents 3 to 6 were not allowing the petitioner to use the cart track and waterway pipelines and has been giving life threat to the petitioner with dire consequences. Therefore, he seeks a direction to the respondent police to provide police protection

4. At the outset, this court is of the view that a blanket order providing police protection could not be granted. The order of interim injunction was granted only on 27.03.2025 and no material has been placed before this court as to whether the order has been appealed or not. Even assuming that the interim order has reached its finality, if there are any violations committed by the

private respondents in complying the interim order, the petitioner is not left remediless. He can very well file necessary application under Or.39, Rule 2A of CPC before the concerned Court to redress his grievance. On such application being filed, the trial court shall hear the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.

5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. msr 11-08-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To 1.The State Rep by its The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District.

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

N.SATHISH KUMAR J.

msr 11-08-2025