Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/8198/2024disposed of

P.Muthu v. The Superitendent Of Police

2025-04-16Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL CRL. O.P(MD) No.8198 of 2024 P.Muthu ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Kodaikanal.

3.Bose 4.Babu ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 to direct the second respondent to provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members under the head of second respondent on the basis of the representation given by the petitioner on 20.05.2024.

Page No. 1 of 5

For petitioner : Mr.M.A.M.Raja For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R3 & R4 : No appearance *****

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner to direct the second respondent to provide adequate police protection for the petitioner and his family members by considering the petitioner's representation dated 20.05.2024.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the property in S.F.No.785/34 and 775/1. While so, the private respondents/respondents 3 and 4 frequently, interfered with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the property. The third respondent is the Councillor and thereby, by influencing his position, he is frequently interfering with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's property. Hence, he filed a suit in O.S.No.86 of 2023, on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal and the same is also pending, wherein they obtained interim stay in I.A.No. Page No. 2 of 5

210 of 2023. In spite of that, the private respondents interfered with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the property and therefore, he sent a representation to the second respondent on 20.05.2024, but the same has not been considered. Hence, he filed this petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the petitioner's representation was considered and closed after enquiry as civil in nature. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication.

4. According to the petitioner, the respondents 3 and 4 are causing life threat to the petitioner and also interfering with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, he sent a representation to the second respondent on 20.05.2024. The second respondent also admitted the receipt of the complaint and further, the said representation was already considered and closed. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication in this case. However, if any criminal activities done by the respondents 3 and 4, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the second respondent by way of filing specific complaint. Page No. 3 of 5

5. With the abovesaid observations and directions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

16.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Kodaikanal.

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

Page No. 4 of 5

P.DHANABAL,J apd Crl.OP(MD) No.8198 of 2024 16.04.2025 Page No. 5 of 5