Sannasi v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL CRL. OP(MD) No.6342 of 2025 Sannasi ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Pettavaithalai Police Station, Pettavaithalai, Tiruchirappalli District.

3. Arunakiri

4. Arunachalam ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to direct the respondents no.1 to 3 may please to give necessary police protection to the petitioner and his family based on the complaint given by the petitioner to the respondents no.1 and 2 dated 17.03.2025 with due process of law.

Page No. 1 of 5

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajaguru For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents no.1 to 3 to give police protection to the petitioner based on the complaint given by the petitioner to the respondents no.1 and 2 dated 17.03.2025.

2. According to the petitioner, there is a property dispute pending between the petitioner and the respondents no.3 and 4 and thereby, the private respondents caused obstructions from construction made by the petitioner and also they have attempted to assault and abuse the petitioner by unparliamentary words and threatened with dire consequences and thereby, he sent a representation on 17.03.2025 and the same has not been considered. Hence this petition.

Page No. 2 of 5

3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents no.1 and 2 would submit that the representation of the petitioner was already considered and closed as civil dispute after an elaborate enquiry on 06.04.2025. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication in this case.

4. Considering the prayer sought for in the petition, this Court even without issuing notice to the respondents no.3 and 4 inclined to pass orders in this petition.

5. According to the petitioner, due to property dispute the private respondents no.3 and 4 caused life threat to the petitioner and therefore, he sent a representation for police protection on 17.03.2025, but the same has not been considered. According to the 2nd respondent, the representation of the petitioner was already considered and the same was closed on 06.04.2025 as civil dispute. Therefore, recording the above said submission of the 2nd respondent that the representation of the petitioner was already considered and closed, nothing survives for further adjudication in this case. In view of the same, this criminal original Page No. 3 of 5

petition is closed. However, if any parties indulge in criminal activities, they can approach the 2nd respondent by lodging specific complaint in accordance with law.

07.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Mac To

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

2. The Inspector of Police, Pettavaithalai Police Station, Pettavaithalai, Tiruchirappalli District.

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

Page No. 4 of 5

P.DHANABAL, J.

Mac CRL. OP(MD) No.6342 of 2025 07.04.2025 Page No. 5 of 5