Sandhiya v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP W.P.(MD)No.4019 of 2024 Sandhiya ... Petitioner /vs./ 1.The Superintendent of Police O/o. the Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy.
2.The Inspector of Police Vaththalai Police Station, Trichy District.
3. The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.
4.Peter Fernandaz, 5.Parvathy ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No. 2 to give adequate necessary police protection to the Petitioner based on the Petitioner's representation dated 17.02.2024 within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Joel Paul Antony 1/4
For R1 to R3 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
ORDER
The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is the wife of the fourth Respondent. There had been matrimonial dispute between them and she is living now along with her parents. While so, the fourth Respondent is alleged to have given messages through Social Media, threatening her and also defaming her by using filthy languages. Therefore, the Petitioner had lodged a complaint with the third Respondent. In spite of the same, the Respondents 4 and 5 are continuously harassing her and also threatening here that they will murder, if you are go to the Police Station and lodged a complaint. It is the further submission of the Petitioner that even though she had given a complaint to the third Respondent, they did not initiate any action till date. Therefore, the Petitioner seeks police protection.
2. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) on instructions of the Respondent Police submits that there had been matrimonial dispute betwen the Petitioner and the fourth Respondent. The Petitioner wants to get separated from the fourth Respondent. But, the 2/4
fourth Respondent is not willing to get separated from the Petitioner. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) admits that there was only matrimonial dispute between the parties. There is no actual threats. If any threats, the Respondent Police undertakes to take severe action against the Respondents 4 and 5.
3. Recording the abovesaid submissions, the Petitioner is directed to approach the Civil Court, regarding matrimonial dispute. The Respondents 1 to 3 herein are directed to extend protection to the Petitioner from threat of murder extended to her through the social media post by the Respondents 4 and 5.
4. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is closed. No costs.
22.02.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes/ No LS 3/4
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP , J.
LS TO:
1.The Superintendent of Police O/o. the Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy.
2.The Inspector of Police Vaththalai Police Station, Trichy District.
3. The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
W.P.(MD)No.4019 of 2024 22.02.2024 4/4