S.Murugananthan v. The Director General Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:19.11.2018
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH W.P.No.29093 of 2018 S.Murugananthan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai - 600 004.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
3.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.
4.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vadapalani, Chennai - 600 026.
5.The Inspector of Police, R-5, Virugambakkam Police Station, Virugambakkam, Chennai - 600 092. ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to give the police protection to the petitioner's life, body and person.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.D.Johnson For Respondents: Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed seeking for police protection.
2.The petitioner is a practising Advocate before this Court and he hails from Thiruvarur District. This petitioner was handling certain sensitive cases before this Court and also before the City Civil Court, Chennai.
3.Aggrieved by the same, the other side has engaged certain Goondas/Rowdies and have threatened the petitioner to withdraw from the case. The petitioner has also filed certain photographs in this regard, which was taken from the CCTV footage.
4.The petitioner had given a detailed representation to the Commissioner of Police, in this regard on 17.10.2018. The petitioner also gave a complaint to the fifth respondent to take action against the accused persons and no action has been taken till date. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking for Police protection, on the ground that there is a potential threat for the life and limb of the petitioner.
5.The petitioner is a practicing Advocate. The Advocate representing any party should not be put under threat. It goes against the independent nature of the profession. The petitioner has produced prima facie material in order to prove his apprehension that there is potential threat for the life and limb. The respondent police inspite of receiving the complaint, has not even called the concerned parties for enquiry.
6.The learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has to immediately go to his home town, in view of the recent cyclone that hit Thiruvarur District, in order to attend to his family members.
7.In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is permitted to submit a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvarur. The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvarur immediately on receipt of the representation, shall direct the concerned jurisdictional police station to grant police protection to the petitioner, when the petitioner visits his home town at Thiruvarur. 8.This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
gsp/stm Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai - 600 004.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
3.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.
4.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vadapalani, Chennai - 600 026.
5.The Inspector of Police, R-5, Virugambakkam Police Station, Virugambakkam, Chennai - 600 092.
6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvarur.
+1cc to Mr.C.D.Johnson, Advocate SR.No.79009 KR/20/11/18 W.P.No.29093 of 2018