← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/5162/2019disposed of

Arul Mary v. The Commissioner Of Police

2019-04-05Honourable Mr Justice N. Seshasayee2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.04.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5162 of 2019 Arul Mary ... Petitioner /Vs./ 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram Police Station, Avaniyapuram, Madurai.

3.Lakshmi

...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to provide Police protection to the life and limb of petitioner and her son viz., Lawrance against the life threat perceived from the third respondent on the basis of the representation dated 02.04.2019. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Indrachithu For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Crl. side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to provide Police protection to the life and limb of petitioner and her son viz., Lawrance against the life threat perceived from the third respondent on the basis of the representation dated 02.04.2019.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the mother-in-law of the third respondent, that the third respondent and the petitioner's son, Lawrance were living separately for several years, that S.M.O.P.No.882 of 2017 is pending before the Family Court, Madurai, for dissolution of the marriage, that while things stood thus, the third respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

unauthorizedly has entered the house of the petitioner, beaten her badly, as a result of which, the petitioner suffered internal injuries and she was also admitted in the hospital. On the incident, she preferred a complaint to the second respondent police, but the second respondent police did not take any action.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is now directed to prefer a fresh complaint / representation to the second respondent, who shall now cause such necessary enquiry on 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.

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

6. It is made clear that this Court does not order granting of police protection 24 x 7 and the second 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 / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) sm To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram Police Station, Avaniyapuram, Madurai.

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

+1 CC to M/s.T.INDRACHITHU,Advocate(SR-59411[F] dated 05/04/2019) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5162 of 2019 05.04.2019 ES/13.05.2019/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/