L.Chockalingam v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.07.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN L.Chockalingam ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Panayapatti Police Station, Pudukkottai District.
3.T.L.Dinesh Kumar ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to direct the 2nd respondent to give necessary police protection to the petitioner as well as his parents, on the basis of his complaint, dated 22.06.2020.
For Petitioner : M/s.P.Kalaiyarasi Bharathi For Respondents : Mr.S.Chandrasekar (R1 & R2) Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed and seeking the relief of direction, directing the 2nd respondent to give necessary police protection to the petitioner as well as his parents, on the basis of his complaint, dated 22.06.2020.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an employee in the Agency run by the 3rd respondent, in the name and style of 'Achi Masala Dealership'. In the year of 2009, the said Agency was closed and thereafter, the salary dues towards the petitioner are not paid by the 3rd respondent. Instead of paying the salary dues to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent herein demanded the petitioner to give Rs.12,00,000/-, by saying that the said amount was received by the petitioner, as a loan, for his marriage, consequent to that, the 3rd respondent made a life threat to the petitioner and also under the guise of settlement talk obtained the signatures from the petitioner in some blank papers and promissory notes. Now, by using the same,
the 3rd respondent along with some other persons, trespassed and made a house breaking in the rental house in which the petitioner resides situated at Kuruvikondanpatti. Though the actual incident was complained to the Othakadai Police Station at Madurai, the 3rd respondent, by using the COVID-19 Pandemic situation, tried to adopt all sorts of illegal method and made threat towards the petitioner. Hence, it is necessary to give police protection to the petitioner as well as his parents.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police, on instructions, would submit that in respect to the dispute having by the petitioner and the 3rd respondent both of them filed a case and a counter case by mentioning the false addresses. Hence, in the said situation, it is unnecessary to give police protection. However, he undertakes to give adequate police protection to the petitioner, if necessary.
4. Considering the rival submissions made by either side counsels, there is no specific instances is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in which the 3rd respondent was made life threat to the petitioner and his family members. The entire circumstances establishes the fact that the 3rd respondent and the petitioner are having dispute over money transactions already, the same has to be settled only before the civil Court. Therefore, necessary remedy is available to the petitioner is to approach the competent Court for which Police protection is not necessary. However, taking note of the fact that undertaking was given by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (crl.side) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) MPK 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 Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Panayapatti Police Station, Pudukkottai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai 06.07.2020 KB(22.07.2020) 3P 4C