E.Visalakshi v. The Inspector General Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN E.Visalakshi ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.
3.The Inspector of Police, Papanadu Police Station, Papanadu, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District.
4.S.Anandhan 5.Tamilarasan 6.M.Chinnappa 7.C.Latha ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate police protection to the petitioner for her life, limb and property based on the e-complaints submitted by the petitioner's daughter, dated 21.05.2020, 24.10.2020, 11.11.2020 and 14.12.2020, within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram for R1 to R3 Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(This writ petition is heard through video conference) This criminal original petition has been filed to give a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate police protection to the petitioner for her life, limb and property based on the e-complaints submitted by the petitioner's daughter, dated 21.05.2020, 24.10.2020, 11.11.2020 and 14.12.2020, within the time 1/3
limit that may be stipulated by this Court.
2.When the matter was taken up for hearing on 10.08.2021, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that when enquiry was undertaken in CSR No.780 of 2021, the petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Officer and Co-operate with him to conclude the enquiry. So a direction was given to the petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Officer and co-operative with him to conclude the enquiry and to intimate the outcome of the enquiry. On that ground the matter has been listed today. Even today, there is no representation for the petitioner.
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that inspite of specific direction issued by this Court, the petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. Even the enquiry made by the second respondent reveals that the petitioner is not residing in the address given in the petition and the door was continuously put under lock. Since the petitioner is not residing in the above said address and not co-operating for the enquiry, inspite of specific direction issued by this Court, I find no merit in this petition and inclined to dismiss the same.
4.This criminal original petition is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS II) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) TM Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To 1.The Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.
2/3
3.The Inspector of Police, Papanadu Police Station, Papanadu, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
17.09.2021 PS(CO) SB(28.09.2021) 3P 5C 3/3