Mohamed Yusuf, v. The Superintendent Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.01.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Mohamed Yusuf ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Adiramapattinam Police Station, Thanjavur District.

3.Muthukrishnan ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent police to provide a police protection to the petitioner's life and limb and conclude the enquiry in connection with C.S.R.No.940 of 2024 within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed For R1 & R2 : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor ***** Page No. 1 of 5

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent police to provide police protection to the petitioner's life and limb and to conclude the enquiry in connection with C.S.R.No.940 of 2024 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. The petitioner purchased the property in Survey No.240/3, situated at Athiramapattinam, Thanjavur District, under a registered Sale Deed dated 08.02.2024 from one Thasleema. The petitioner intended to put up a construction on the said property. However, whenever the petitioner makes arrangements for construction, the third respondent has been abusing and threatening the petitioner. It is observed that the third respondent was interested in purchasing the subject property, but the vendor of the petitioner was not willing to sell the same to the third respondent. Now, the petitioner is not being allowed to carry out construction or have free access to the property.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents submitted that, based on the complaint of the Page No. 2 of 5

petitioner, C.S.R.No.940 of 2024 has been assigned. The third respondent was called for enquiry and stated that he had filed O.S.No.15 of 2024.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was never called for enquiry, and he was not aware that the third respondent had been called for enquiry. Further, the proper method of enquiry is that both the petitioner and the third respondent should be called together for enquiry, and the enquiry ought to have been conducted thereafter.

5. When the learned Additional Government Pleader was questioned regarding the particulars of the civil case, except for O.S. No. 15 of 2024, he was not aware of the other details. In view of this, it is clear that no proper enquiry has been conducted. Therefore, both the petitioner and the third respondent shall be summoned, and documents shall be collected from both parties to resolve the issue and dispose of the petitioner's complaint. This exercise shall be concluded by the second respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Page No. 3 of 5

6. In the result, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. 20.01.2025 Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order JEN To:

1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Adiramapattinam Police Station, Thanjavur District.

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

Page No. 4 of 5

M.NIRMAL KUMAR , J.

JEN 20.01.2025 Page No. 5 of 5