Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/11737/2016disposed of

Mrs.K.Pasumponnu, v. The Superintendent Of Police,

2016-07-29Honourable Dr. Justice S. Vimala2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.07.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11737 of 2016 K.Pasumponnu

...Petitioner

-vsState thro' rep. by 1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai Rural, Madurai District 2.The Inspector of Police, Chekkanoorani Police Station, Madurai District 3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Vikkaramangalam Police Station Madurai District 4.Pappuammal 5.Amul @ Amulraj 6.Otchu 7.Moorthy 8.Santhi

...Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondent Police No.1 to 3 to give protection to the petitioner and her family members while cultivating the lands situated in the mentioned properties on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 28.02.2016. For Petitioner : M/s.T.K.Gopalan For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) For R4 to R6 & R8 : Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah *****

O R D E R

This petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to give protection to the petitioner and her family members, while cultivating the lands on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 28.02.2016.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents 4 to 8 are causing disturbance to the petitioner in cultivating his lands and hence, the petitioner has instituted a suit in O.S.No.215/2015 before the District Munsif Court, Usilampatti. In the said suit, as the respondents 4 to 8 have not contested and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

hence, the suit came to be decreed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.215/2015 submitted that as the respondents 4 to 8 herein do not contest the suit and under such circumstances, the Court left with no other option except to decree the suit and thereby restrained the opposite party from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. However, the respondents 4 to 8 are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and have been threatening the petitioner.

4. In view of the above, respondent police is directed to give adequate police protection to the petitioner till harvest is over in this year (as and when needed).

With the above direction, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai Rural, Madurai District 2.The Inspector of Police, Chekkanoorani Police Station, Madurai District 3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Vikkaramangalam Police Station Madurai District 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1cc to M/s.T.K.Gopalan, Advocate in SR.40607 +1cc to M/s.J.Senthilkumariah, Advocate in SR.40711 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11737 of 2016 29.07.2016 rr/ar.

PBK/DB/SAR-III 11/08/2016 ::2P-7C::(IT) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/