Nithiya v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.05.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Nithiya ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kadayanallur Police Station, Tenkasi District.

3.Karuppaiah 4.Pitchaiah 5.Vellaisamy 6.Kaliammal 7.Parvathi 8.Krishnammal ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to direct the second respondent to give adequate police protection for the life and limb of the petitioner and her in-laws based on the representation, dated 02.05.2022. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Selvakumar For R1 and R2 : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to give adequate police protection for the life and limb of the petitioner and her in-laws, based on the representation, dated 02.05.2022. 2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's father-in-law owned a property, in which, the other in-laws of the petitioner are claiming right over the property 1/3

and filed a suit in O.S.No.59 of 2022, on the file of the Sub-Court, Tenkasi and without having any valid document, they were frequently threatened the petitioner and her in-laws with ulterior motive to grab the property.

Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 02.05.2022, to the respondents. He would further submit that till today, the respondents have not passed any order in that regard. Hence, this petition has been filed and he further stated that this Court may issue a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, after providing an opportunity of hearing the petitioner and the other inlaws. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 stated that already there was a civil dispute pending between the petitioner and the other in-laws. The petitioner had already made two complaints in CSR.Nos.85 and 147 of 2022.

Even though the petitioner made a representations before the respondents, the same were also rejected, without challenging the closure of CSR, filing the present criminal original petition or filing a private complaint is not a sustainable one. 4.Considering the facts and circumstances, the same request made by the petitioner was already rejected by the law enforcing agency in CSR.Nos.85 and 147 of 2022. Without challenging the said closure reports and filing appropriate private complaint before the jurisdictional Court, filing the present criminal original petition is not sustainable.

5.In view of the above, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Accordingly, the criminal original petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to workout the remedy in the manner known to law. Sd/- Vacation Officer Assistant Registrar (CS-I) // True Copy // 18/05/2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) lr/das 2/3

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kadayanallur Police Station, Tenkasi District.

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

Order made in 11.05.2022 PKP/18.05.2022/3P/4C 3/3