← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/5169/2019disposed of

Priyadharshini v. The Inspector 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.5169 and 5113 of 2019 Priyadharshini ... Petitioner in both petitions /Vs./ 1.The Inspector of Police, Boodhalur Police Station, Boodhalur, Thanjavur District.

2.Govindaraj

...Respondents in both petitions

PRAYER in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5169 of 2019: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to direct the first respondent not to harass the petitioner in guise of enquiry. PRAYER in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5113 of 2019: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to direct the first respondent to give the adequate Police protection to the life and liberty of the petitioner and her husband since their marriage is the inter-caste marriage.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sivabalan For R-1 : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Crl. Side) (in both petitions) COMMON ORDER Both these petitions come for two different purposes, but revolves around the same cause of action. The petitioner is the daughter of the second respondent and on 01.04.2019, she turned 18 years. Earlier, the second respondent had arranged marriage for the petitioner, when she, was still a minor. The petitioner opposed the marriage for more than one reason and one of the important reasons is that she, at the relevant point of time, was loving a boy named Sarankumar. She therefore promptly intimated the Childline Authorities, who rushed to stop the marriage.

2. It now appears that both the daughter and the father were awaiting 01.04.2019, the date on which the petitioner would be turning 18. Not to waste a day, the petitioner's father is again said to have fixed the marriage on the date on which she turned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18. But the petitioner flew and married the man of her choice Sarankumar. Now the petitioner complains (a) that the first respondent namely the Inspector of Police is harassing the new married couple at the instance of the petitioner's father (b) seeking police protection to the petitioner and her husband from the threat to the life, limb and liberty by the second respondent.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) concurred with the factual narration of the case of the petitioner's counsel. As to the first prayer is concerned, the petitioner and her husband have never been harassed by the first respondent. As to the second prayer is concerned, in the eventuality of threat perception of the petitioner is being true, necessary protection would be provided.

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

5. This Court therefore directs the first respondent to take such appropriate decision as may be necessary to protect the life, limb and liberty of the petitioner. He is also directed not to harass the petitioner. Accordingly, the criminal original petitions are disposed of.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (W) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Inspector of Police, Boodhalur Police Station, Boodhalur, Thanjavur District.

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

+1 CC to M/s.K.SIVABALAN, Advocate ( SR-59416[F] dated 05/04/2019 ) SM Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5169 of 2019 05.04.2019 KM/(07.05.2019) 3P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/