A.Rajesh v. The State Of Tamilnadu,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI A.Rajesh ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Musiri Division, Tiruchirappalli District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Thuraiyur Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District.

4. Stalin

5. Rajalakshmi

6. Ramani ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to pass an order directing the 3rd respondent to give adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his parent.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gowrishankar For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar (R1 to R3) Additional Public Prosecutor 1/6

ORDER

The petitioner seeks for a direction to the 3rd respondent to give adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his parents.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- from the private respondents for family expenses at an interest rate of 1.5% per month. For the said loan, he executed a sale deed dated 06.12.2018, creating a charge over a 1/3rd share of the property each in their favour. Despite the petitioner having paid interest regularly at the rate of Rs.67,500/- per month, amounting to a total of Rs. 9,20,000/-, he is now being threatened by the private respondents to vacate the house immediately, owing to the rise in land prices in the said location.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had filed a suit in OS No.82 of 2021 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur, seeking permanent injunction from vacating the petitioner without following the due process of law. However, on 18.12.2026 at about 09:00 a.m., the private respondents and their henchmen had forcibly tried to vacate the petitioner from the said house. In this regard, the petitioner had lodged the complaint on 23.01.2026, for which the 2/6

respondent police failed to act in the manner known to law. Hence this petition came to be filed.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police submitted that the complaint has been received only on 23.02.2026 and not on 23.01.2026, and the respondent police is looking into the matter.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either sides and carefully perused the materials available on record. Since no adverse order is proposed to be passed against the private respondents herein, notice to them is dispensed with.

6. It is clear that the pending dispute is a civil dispute. Considering the nature of the civil dispute involved, the third respondent police is directed to issue summons to the petitioner as well as the private respondents and require them to produce the necessary documents before the respondent police. If the petitioner's claim is found to be genuine, the third respondent police is directed to afford necessary police protection, in terms of GO.Ms.No.139, Home (PolVIII) Department, dated 04.03.2019. 3/6

7. With the above direction, this criminal original petition stands disposed of.

27.02.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No sm 4/6

TO:-

1. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Musiri Division, Tiruchirappalli District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Thuraiyur Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District.

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

5/6

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sm Order made in Dated 27.02.2026 6/6