Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/1934/2018disposed of

C.Arul Thiyagarajan v. The Superintendent Of Police

2018-02-08Honourable Mr Justice P. Rajamanickam2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.02.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1934 of 2018 C.Arul Thiyagarajan

...Petitioner

-Vs1. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.

2. The Inspector of Police, Vadasery Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

3. Mutharamman Nadesa Swamy Trust represented by its President, Opp.Anna Stadium, Balamore Road, Nagercoil - 629 001.

... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, directing the first respondent to direct the second respondent to take appropriate action against the third respondent and others, on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner dated 01.02.2018 and grant appropriate police protection to the petitioner's family members. For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Vishnu Varthanan For Respondents : Mr.Prabu Ramachandran RR-1 & 2 Government Advocate

ORDER

This Criminal Original petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to take action against the third respondent based upon the complaint given by the petitioner dated 01.02.2018 and also grant police protection to the petitioner and his family members.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.Heard, Mr.P.M.Vishnu Varthanan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Prabu Ramachandran, Government Advocate appearing for the first and second respondents. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the third respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.1755 of 1985 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, in respect of common compound wall, against the petitioner's father. The said suit was dismissed on 15.06.1992 Now, the third respondent trying to demolish the compound wall. The petitioner has objected the same, but the third respondent threatening the petitioner and his family members. Hence, the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the second respondent on 01.02.2018, but sofar, no action has been taken. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) has submitted that the enquiry is still pending.

5.Considering the aforesaid submissions, the second respondent is directed to expedite the enquiry and if the enquiry reveals is any cognizable offence, then he has registered a case and proceed further in accordance with law.

6.With the aforesaid observations, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.

2. The Inspector of Police, Vadasery Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

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

+ 1 cc TO Mr.P.M.Vishnu Varthanan , Advocate in SR No. 47628 das/ls AE/JC/SAR3/09.03.2018/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1934 of 2018 08.02.2018