Arumugam v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Arumugam ... Petitioner Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy.

2. The Inspector of Police,, Puthanatham Police Station, Trichy District.

3. Karuppaiah

4. Selvi ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original petitions have been filed under Section 528 of BNSS to direct the respondents No. 1 and 2 to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner's life and limb on the basis of his representation, dated 10.03.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Ezhilarasu For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar (R1,R2) Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/5

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the respondents No. 1 and 2 to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner on the basis of his representation, dated 10.03.2025. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is having a house at South Street, Kazhugumalai of Dindigul District. The respondents 3 and 4, who are politically influenced persons in order to grab the property, attacked the petitioner with an iron rod to execute documents in respect of house property in favor of the respondents 3 and 4, thereby, the petitioner has lodged a complaint on 11.02.2025. In this regard, CSR No.29 of 2025 has been assigned. However, no action has been taken thereafter. Therefore, he sent another representation on 10.03.2025 and the same has not been considered. Hence, this petition.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that there is a property dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4.

and closed by the respondent police on 14.03.2025. Therefore, the representation of the petitioner dated 10.03.2025 has already been considered and closed. Nothing survives for further adjudication. 4.Considering the prayer sought for by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to dispose of the petition without issuing issued notice to the private respondents.

5.Since the representation given by the petitioner seeking police protection was already considered and closed by the second respondent and the complaint lodged by the private respondents against the petitioner was also enquired and closed, nothing survives for further adjudication. Accordingly, this petition stands closed. However, if any complaint is lodged by either of the parties for any specific criminal activities, then the second respondent is at liberty to take appropriate steps against them in accordance with law.

17.03.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No PNM 3/5

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy.

2. The Inspector of Police,, Puthanatham Police Station, Trichy District.

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

4/5

P. DHANABAL, J.

PNM ORDER IN 17.03.2025 5/5