S.Thirugnanam v. State Of Tamilnadu, Rep By The Superintendent Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 12/01/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI S.Thirugnanam ... Petitioner Vs

1. State of Tamilnadu, Rep by The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

2. State of Tamilnadu Rep by The Inspector of Police, Appanthirupathi Police Station, Madurai District.

3. M.Periyakaruppan ... Respondents PRAYER :- To direct the 2nd respondent to give adequate Police Protection to the petitioner based on the petitioners representation letter dated 27.12.2025. For Petitioner : Mr. G.R.Satish, Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar for R1 and R2 Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/6

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking to direct the second respondent to give adequate police protection to the petitioner based on his representation dated 27.12.2025.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier there had been a civil dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent following which suit in OS.No.323 of 2010 was filed before the learned District Court at Melur which was decreed in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the respondent filed an appeal in AS.No.100 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Melur Camp, which was referred to Lok Adalat and an award was also passed on 22.04.2018 and as per the award, the petitioner had given totally 33 cents to the third respondent without any consideration. The remaining land which is the subject property of the suit remained with the petitioner. The said award passed in AS No.100 of 2017 has been duly complied by both the parties. Thereafter, the petitioner had cultivated the remaining land and during harvest, the third respondent has created trouble and prevented the petitioner from harvesting the same and hence he had made a 2/6

representation before the police on 27/12/2025, seeking adequate police protection.

3. Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, learned Government Advocate, submitted that considering the nature of the case, it is necessary to issue notice to the third respondent and thereafter take a final call.

4. However considering the limited scope of the relief sought for, this Court hereby dispense with the issuance of notice to the third respondent.

5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that already a first information report has been registered as against the third respondent in Crime No.110 of 2025.

6. Despite the same, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the harvest has been prevented by the third respondent. 3/6

7. In view of the same, the respondent Police is directed to issue summon/notice under Section 62 of Cr.P.C., specifying the date, time and purpose of enquiry to both the petitioner as well as the third respondent. However, it is made clear that oral or informal summons should be strictly prohibited. Thereafter, the enquiry should be undertaken and completed within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the police is directed to conclude the enquiry and facilitate the petitioner to harvest the standing crops in the field in terms of the award passed in AS.No.100 of 2017. However, it is made clear the petitioner should borne the expenditure for affording police protection in terms of G.O.Ms.No.139 Home (Pol.VIII) Department dated 04.03.2019.

8. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

12.01.2026 NCC : yes / no Index : yes / no Internet : yes / no pnn 4/6

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

2. The Inspector of Police, Appanthirupathi Police Station, Madurai District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J pnn

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.613 of 2026 Date : 12/01/2026 6/6