M. Pown v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL CRL. O.P(MD) No.5977 of 2025 M.Pown ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.Inspector of Police, M.Rettiyapatti Police Station, Aruppukkottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

3.Rameshwaran 4.K.Kathivel 5.A.Aavadiayammal 6.Sankarashwari 7.A.Rajkumar 8.M.Thadanaachiyar 9.T.Chinnathai.

... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 to direct the Page No. 1 of 5

respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner on the representation made by the petitioner to the respondent on 24.03.2025.

For petitioner :Mr.A.MU.Sharavanan For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) *****

O R D E R

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner based on the representation, dated 24.03.2025.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a money dispute pending between the petitioner and the respondents 5 to 9 and thereby, they threatened the petitioner by demanding exorbitant interest. Hence, she lodged a complaint, but no action was taken. The petitioner also sent a representation, dated 24.03.2025 for police protection and the same has alsonot been considered. Hence, she filed this petition.

Page No. 2 of 5

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that based on the complaint given by the petitioner, the case in Crime No.43 of 2025 was registered against the respondents 5 to 9. Therefore, the representation of the petitioner was already considered. Hence, nothing survives for further adjudication in this petition.

4. Considering the prayer sought for in this petition, this Court, without issuing notice to the private respondents, is inclined to pass orders.

5. According to the petitioner, the private respondents, due to money dispute, caused life threat to the petitioner and thereby, she lodged the complaint and also sought for police protection and the same has not been considered. According to the second respondent, based on the complaint given by the petitioner, they registered the case in Crime No.43 of 2025 as against the respondents 5 to 9.

6. In view of the same, recording the submission of the learned Page No. 3 of 5

Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

01.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.Inspector of Police, M.Rettiyapatti Police Station, Aruppukkottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

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

Page No. 4 of 5

P.DHANABAL,J apd Crl.OP(MD) No.5977 of 2025 01.04.2025 Page No. 5 of 5