Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/4037/2019disposed of

Mohammed Ali Jinna, v. The Superintendent Of Police

2019-03-25Honourable Mr Justice N. Seshasayee2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.03.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4037 of 2019 Mohammed Ali Jinna : Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli - 627 002. 2.The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Valliyoor - 627 117, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Panangudi Police Station, Panangudi - 627 109. 4.Alto : Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to grant adequate police protection to the petitioner, by considering the representation dated 11.02.2019, in respect to the building bearing Door No.12/472, in Perungudi Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Ms.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.V.Neelakandan Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petition herein is filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to grant adequate police protection to the petitioner, by considering the representation dated 11.02.2019, in respect to the building bearing Door No.12/472, in Perungudi Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who is the tenant of the fourth respondent had already obtained a decree in O.S.No.163 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Valliyoor, that he shall not be evicted except in accordance with law.

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

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that a complaint / representation was preferred by the petitioner, that was

enquired into, both the petitioner and the private respondents appeared who agreed to abide by the judgment of the Court below.

5. The statement of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is recorded. It reflects that there may not be any present threat to the petitioner's life, limb and liberty immediately. If however there is any real threat perception exists, the petitioner shall approach the third respondent. The third respondent is also directed to enquire into the matter of the complaint filed by the petitioner and take such appropriate decision as may be necessary to protect the life, limb and liberty of the petitioner.

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

7. It is made clear that this Court does not order granting of police protection (24 X 7) and the third respondent is left to decide on the basis of the objective assessment of the threat perception of the petitioner from time to time. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (WRIT AE) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli - 627 002. 2.The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Valliyoor - 627 117, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Panangudi Police Station, Panangudi - 627 109.

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

1 CC to M/s.P.JESSI JEEVA PRIYA, Advocate ( SR-56348[F] dated 25/03/2019 ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4037 of 2019 25.03.2019 DS/ /SAR- (16.04.2019) 2P 6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/