Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/16245/2017allowed

P. Aayammal, D/O.Perumal v. The Superintendent Of Police,

2018-08-16Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.08.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16245 of 2017 P.Aayammal : Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Surveyar Colony, Madurai Town.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samayanallur, Vadipatty Taluk, Madurai District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station, Alanganallur, Vadipatty Taluk, Madurai District.

4.Veeman : Respondents (The fourth respondent is impleaded as per order in Crl.M.P.(MD) No.11153 of 2017 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16245 of 2017, dated 16.08.2018) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to issue a direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to give Police protection to the petitioner and for his family member's life and limb by considering the representation dated 26.05.2017. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Babu Jaganath For Respondents : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bhrathi Government Advocate

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed for seeking Police protection.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that a final decree was passed in I.A.No.11 of 2003 in O.S.No.753 of 1989 on 26.10.2010 wherein the subject matter of the land was allotted to the share of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed a petition in E.P.No.9 of 2012 for delivery of the property, in which an Advocate Commissioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

was appointed and he had demarked the property and the same is evident from the commissioner's report and thereafter, delivery has also been effected.

3.Even after the delivery was effected, the petitioner is prevented from enjoying her property by the fourth respondent. After having suffered an order, the fourth respondent is again preventing the petitioner from enjoying fruits of the decree. 4.In the facts and circumstances of the case, the third respondent is directed to give Police protection to the petitioner and her family members and if in case the fourth respondent continuous to interfere with the enjoyment of the petitioner, the third respondent is directed to take action against the fourth respondent in accordance with law.

5.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-II) To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Surveyar Colony, Madurai Town.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samayanallur, Vadipatty Taluk, Madurai District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station, Alanganallur, Vadipatty Taluk, Madurai District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1CC to MR.R.Babu Jaganath, Advocate in Sr.no.79065. DS SKN SAR-3 ;07.09.2018; 2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16245 of 2017 16.08.2018