R.Asokkan v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL R.Asokkan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District @ Dindigul.

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

3. M.Sivakumar ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to direct the respondents to provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and other trustees of Cheran Educational Trust to enable them to administer their school, Cheran Vidhyalaya Matriculation High Secondary School, situated at Chinnalapatti, Dindigul District, by considering the petitioner's complaint dated 25.03.2025. Page No. 1 of 5

For Petitioner : Mr. N.Sathish Babu For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R3 : Mr.H. Lakshmi Shankar

O R D E R

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and other trustees of Cheran Educational Trust to enable them to administer their School, namely, Cheran Vidhyalaya Matriculation High Secondary School, situated at Chinnalapatti, Dindigul District, by considering the petitioner's complaint dated 25.03.2025.

2. According to the petitioner, there is a dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent in respect of trusteeship of the above said School. Therefore, the 3rd respondent along with henchman preventing the petitioner from entering and administering the School and threatened with dire consequences and thereby, the petitioner sent a representation dated 25.03.2025, but the same has not been considered. Hence this petition.

Page No. 2 of 5

3. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would submit that there is a dispute between the trustees in respect of conducting the above School and the competent court to decide the dispute between the parties is Civil Court. While so, the petitioner has filed this petition for seeking police protection and the police protection cannot be granted.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents no.1 and 2 would submit that the petitioner sent complaint to the 1st respondent 'Superintendent of Police' and no any copy served to the 2nd respondent.

5. Considering the prayer sought for in the petition, this Court recording the above submissions of the both sides counsels and the receipt of complaint of the petitioner also denied by the 2nd respondent and now the 2nd respondent has been served with the copies of the petition, therefore, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the complaint of the petitioner and conduct enquiry and dispose of the same in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both the parties, within a period of fifteen [15] days from the date of this order. Page No. 3 of 5

6. With the above said observation and direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

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

1. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Chinnalapatti Police Station, Dindigul 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.6411 of 2025 07.04.2025 Page No. 5 of 5