G.Pandiarajan v. The Commissioner Of Police

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8896 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.09.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8896 of 2020 G.Pandiarajan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, K.Pudur,Madurai - 625 007.

2.The Inspector of Police, Vilakkuthoon Police Station, Madurai City,Madurai.

3.G.Arunraj 4.J.Karthikeyan ... Respondents *(R3 & R4 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 10.09.2020.)in Crl.MP(MD).No.4232/2020 in Crl.OP(MD) No.8896/2020 PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to direct the 1st respondent, the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, to give necessary police protection to the petitioner and his son to run the business smoothly, on the basis of his representation dated 16.06.2020.

For Petitioner :

Mr.V.Nagendran For Respondents :

Mr.S.Chandrasekar (R1 & R2) Addl.Public Prosecutor For Respondents :

Mr.A.Kannan (R3 & R4)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction, to direct the 1st respondent to give necessary police protection to the petitioner and his son for running the business smoothly, based upon the representation given by the petitioner, dated 16.06.2020.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that respondents 3 and 4, being the partner with the petitioner, interfering with the business activities, which are administered by the petitioner. In this regard, police protection is necessary for running the business smoothly by the petitioner.

3. Per contra, Mr.S.Chandrasekar, the learned Additional Public https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8896 of 2020 Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, would submit that in respect to the representation given by the petitioner, dated 16.06.2020, enquiry has been initiated by the 2nd respondent in current paper No.C.No.R5/435/31825/2020. In the enquiry, both the petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4 were participated and during the time of conciliation, both the parties were made a written undertaking that the dispute having by the petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4 has to be resolved by approaching the competent Court of law. The said submission is recorded.

4. Thus, in view of the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no further order is necessary in this application. More than that, since the dispute having by the petitioner with the respondents 3 and 4 is in respect to the partnership, the petitioner is not at all entitled for the relief of police protection, for the reason that the respondents 3 and 4 are also having some rights in the business running by the petitioner. At any event, the petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-I) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) MPK Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy,shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City,K.Pudur,Madurai - 625 007.

2.The Inspector of Police, Vilakkuthoon Police Station,Madurai City,Madurai. Copy To:-.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.G. PANDIARAJAN,Advocate( SR-18146[F] dated 25/09/2020 ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8896 of 2020 23.09.2020 SS(CO) AP(05/10/2020) 2P 5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2