P.Priya Baskar v. The State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.11.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA P.Priya Baskar ...

Petitioner versus 1.The State represented by, Superintendent of Police, Erode.

2.Inspector of Police, AWPS, Erode.

3.K.S.Rangasamy 4.R.Chellammal ...

Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to direct the respondent to provide police protection to the petitioner and her family based upon the petitioner's complaint dated 17.09.2022.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thangavel for Mr.P.Muthukumarasamy For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr.S.Santhosh 1/5

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to provide police protection to the petitioner and her family by considering her representation dated 17.09.2022. 2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents 3 and 4 are the in-laws of the petitioner and on her complaint dated 17.09.2022, F.I.R. has been registered in Crime No.28 of 2022 on the file of the second respondent police for the offences under Section 498(A), 354A(1)(i), 354A(1)(ii), 354A(1)(iii), 294(b) and 506(1) IPC. The respondents 3 and 4 had obtained anticipatory bail in the said case. Despite that the respondents 3 and 4 continue to cause threat to the petitioner and her husband to withdraw the complaint. The petitioner has been sending repeated representations to the respondents 1 and 2 but so far no action has 2/5

been taken. He further submitted that the son-in-law of the respondents 3 and 4 is a police officer and that is the reason why the petitioner is not able to see the appropriate action on the part of the second respondent police. 4.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioner has given the representation to the second respondent police and it is under consideration. If the enquiry of the second respondent reveals that the respondents 3 and 4 cause threat to the petitioner and her husband then they will take appropriate steps to cancel the anticipatory bail.

5.

In view of such representation made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, I feel it is appropriate to direct the second respondent police to complete the enquiry on the representation given by the petitioner dated 17.09.2022 and do the needful in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

3/5

6.

With these observations, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

22.11.2022 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes sri To 1.The State represented by, Superintendent of Police, Erode.

2.Inspector of Police, AWPS, Erode.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

4/5

R.N.MANJULA , J.

sri 22.11.2022 5/5