Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/3369/2019disposed of

Kalaiselvi v. The Superintendent Of Police,

2019-03-05Honourable Mr Justice N. Seshasayee3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.03.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE CRL.O.P.[MD].No.3369 of 2019 Kalaiselvi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai Town and District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Gandarvakkottai Police Station, Gandarvakkottai Taluk, 4.Mahalingam 5.Saroja ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to issue a direction directing the third respondent to give adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family by considering her representation dated 21.01.2019. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Nagamuthu For R1 to R3 : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu, Government Advocate (Crl.Side).

ORDER

The present petition has been filed to direct the third respondent to give adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members.

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

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner married certain Murugesan, which was an inter-caste marriage. When she accompanied with her husband for worshiping in the family temple of her husband, the respondents 4 and 5 / parentsin-law of the petitioner, posed threat to her life and limb.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the

official respondents submitted that the petitioner gave a complaint against her parents-in-law, which was registered in Crime No.33 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 506(2) IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(2s)(C) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. The said complaint was enquired and closed by the respondent police as 'mistake of fact'.

5. The said statement of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) is recorded.

6. Admittedly the marriage has taken place some seventeen years back. The grievance of the petitioner is that her life was came under threat from her parents-in-law after seventeen years of her marriage, when she was accompanied her husband to worship in the family temple. The husband of the petitioner has not approached this Court seeking protection for his wife. Even the name of the husband of the petitioner was not shown in the cause title in this case. In the backdrop of what the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has submitted, this Court holds that if there is any real threat perception, the petitioner may move the third respondent by way of fresh representation, who may cause such necessary enquiry and take an appropriate decision to accord protection as may be necessary to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner.

7. With the above direction, this criminal original petition is disposed of.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) ta To 1.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai Town and District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Gandarvakkottai Police Station, Gandarvakkottai Taluk, 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.V.SELVA, Advocate ( SR-52310[F] dated 07/03/2019 ) CRL.O.P.[MD].No.3369 of 2019 DS/ /SAR- (09.04.2019) 3 P 6C