Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/13978/2018disposed of

Ganesan v. The Director General Of Police

2018-08-07Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.08.2018

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH CRL.O.P.(MD)No.13978 of 2018 Ganesan ... Petitioner -vs1.The Director General of Police, Chennai.

2.The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai.

3.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City.

4.The Inspector of Police (Law and Order), Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to issue a direction, directing the respondent to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner for his life and limb.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Santhanam Rajeshkumar For Respondents : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This Criminal original Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner for his life and limb.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the Vice President of Hindu Maha Saba. He is involved in public life and has filed various Public Interest Litigations before this Court for public cause. He has also filed Public Interest Litigations for removal of encroachment from water body and orders have also been passed by this Court in those petitions. The learned counsel further submitted that several encroachers aggrieved by the action taken by the petitioner, are threatening him and attempts are being made to do away with the life of the petitioner. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court about two complaints given by him on 23.07.2018 and 27.07.2018 before the respondents.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.Per contra, Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the complaint given by the petitioner is vague and the fourth respondent is not the competent person to decide about providing police protection to the petitioner. If the petitioner makes a proper representation before the third respondent by providing all the particulars regarding the threat to his life, the third respondent will take the petition into consideration and decide about providing police protection to the petitioner.

5.Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation seeking for police protection before the third respondent. The third respondent, on receipt of such representation within a period of one week, shall consider providing police protection to the petitioner. The petitioner has to incur the entire expenditure for providing police protection to him in case the 3rd respondent orders for police protection. 6.This Criminal Original Petition is disposed with the above direction.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) To 1.The Director General of Police, Chennai.

2.The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai.

3.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City.

4.The Inspector of Police (Law and Order), Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

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

+1CC to Mr.B.Santhanam Rajesh Kumar Advocate in SR.No.77747. TM DS/RSK/SAR-4 :14.08.2018: 2P/7C CRL.O.P.(MD)No.13978 of 2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 07.08.2018