Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/6190/2024closed

M.Ayyan v. The District Superintendent Of Police

2025-04-15Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.04.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL M.Ayyanan .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Superintendent of Police The District Superintendent of Police Office Dindigul

2. The Inspector of Police Natham Police Station Natham, Dindigul District

3. Chicken Pandi

4. Mani

5. Arul @ Arulselvan

6. Vanitha

7. Pandi

8. Surya

9. Jeya

10. Lakshmi .. Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to direct respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner based on the representation made by the petitioner to the respondents 1 and 2 on 31.3.2024. 1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Manoharan For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar No.1 and 2 Government Advocate(Crl.Side) No.3 to 7,9 &10 : No appearance No.8 : Mr.S.Paul Murugesh

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to to direct respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner based on the representation made by the petitioner to the respondents 1 and 2 on 31.3.2024.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the private respondent cause life threat for the money borrowed by the daughter-in-law and they also threatened with obscene words and thereby he sent a representation dated 31.03.2024 but no action was taken, hence the present petition was filed.

3. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the daughter of the petitioner had borrowed money to the tune of more than Rs.2 crores from various persons 2/5

and the money lenders have also searched the daughter of the petitioner. Apart from that no any occurrence happened as alleged in the petition. However the representation of the petitioner was already considered and the same was closed on 06.04.2024, thereby nothing survives for further adjudication in this petitioner.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the eighth respondent would submit that the daughter of the petitioner borrowed money from the eighth respondent and when asked to repay the loan amount the petitioner made quarrel with the private respondents and therefore inorder to evade from the payment the petition has been filed.

5. Considering the prayer sought for in the petition this Court without even issuing notice to the private respondents is inclined to pass orders. Since the representation of the petitioner was already considered and the same was closed nothing survives for further adjudication in required in this case. However the petitioner is at liberty to lodge a fresh complaint if any criminal activities done by the private respondents. 3/5

6. Recording the same, the Criminal Original Petition stands closed. 15.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No aav To

1. The District Superintendent of Police The District Superintendent of Police Office Dindigul

2. The Inspector of Police Natham Police Station Natham, Dindigul District 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

P.DHANABAL,J.

aav 15.04.2025 5/5