V. Jothi v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 21.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL V.Jothi .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The State rep., by The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karaikudi Division, Sivagangai District.

3.The Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

4.S.P.Alagappan .. Respondents Prayer : Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate police protection to the petitioner and his shop members from the hands of the fourth respondent and their associates on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 02.04.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.P.r.Boomee Rajan For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Sakthikumar Government Advocate (Crl.side) 1/5

ORDER

This petition is filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate police protection to the petitioner and his shop members from the hands of the fourth respondent and their associates based on the petitioner's complaint dated 02.04.2025.

2. According to the petitioner, he received life threat from the fourth respondent and thereby, he sent a complaint on 02.04.2025 to the respondents 1 to 3 for police protection and the same has not been considered so far. Hence, the present petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, on instructions, submits that after receipt of the complaint from the petitioner, the same was forwarded to the Revenue authority for conducting Peace Committee Meeting. They also conducted a Peace Committee Meeting on 12.04.2025. Since no amicable settlement was arrived, they decide to close the society for the present and the Peace Committee Meeting was adjourned for future date. Therefore, after Peace Committee Meeting, they will consider the representation/complaint of the petitioner, based on the result of the Peace Committee Meeting. 2/5

4. Considering the prayer sought for in this petition, this Court, without issuing notice to the fourth respondent, is inclined to pass order in this petition.

5. According to the petitioner, he sent a representation/complaint for police protection to the respondents 1 to 3 and the same was not considered. According to the third respondent, they received the complaint of the petitioner for police protection and there is a dispute between the petitioner and the erstwhile members of the society and hence, they referred the matter to the Revenue authority for conducting a Peace Committee Meeting. They also conducted Peace Committee Meeting. In the Peace Committee Meeting, they decided to close the society for the present and the meeting was adjourned for future date. So far, no order has been passed in the Peace Committee Meeting. Therefore, recording the same, the petitioner is at liberty to appear before the Peace Committee Meeting and explain all the facts and based on the result of the Peace Committee Meeting, the third respondent shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, in respect of grant of police protection. 3/5

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

21.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Rmk To:

1.The State rep., by The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karaikudi Division, Sivagangai District.

3.The Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

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

4/5

P. DHANABAL ,J.

Rmk 21.04.2025 5/5