Palanimurugan v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.12.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU Palanimurugan ... Petitioner vs.

1)The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District.

2)The Inspector of Police, Kulathur Police Station, Tuticorin District.

3)Kumarsamy Naikar 4)A.K.SenthilKumar 5)A.K.Durai Murugan 6)A.K.Marisamy 7)A.K.Jeyam ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members and his salt production field on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 01.10.2020 and for other reliefs.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Eswaran For R1 & R2 : Mr.V.Neelakandan Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members and his salt production field on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 01.10.2020 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that he is the professional salt manufacturer. His wife and one Christy Jancy Rani entered into a lease agreement with the 3rd respondent over his 36 acres of land situated in Sundarvelpuram to run the salt production plant for the lease period between 10.02.2016 and 10.02.2023. The said Christy Jancy Rani released her rights on 20.09.2019 and the petitioner's wife executed a 1/3

power deed in favour of the petitioner on 13.11.2019 in respect of the salt plant and thereafter, the petitioner is maintaining the salt field. While so, the respondents 3 to 6 entered into the leased property and disturbed the salt production and attacked the labours. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the 2nd respondent/police and during enquiry, the respondents 3 to 6 had stated that they will not disturb the petitioner's salt production plant. However, after some time, again on 30.06.2020, the 3rd respondent made life threat to the petitioner and his family members and therefore, he sent a detailed representation to the respondents/police on 01.10.2020, but no action was taken. Hence this petition.

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would state that the respondents 1 and 2 will consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 01.10.2020 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 and 2. Since no adverse order is going to be passed against the respondents 3 to 7, notice to them is not necessary. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without adverting to the merits of the case, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representations dated 01.10.2020 after giving opportunity to the respondents 3 to 7 by following the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above directions.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RECORDS) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) bala 2/3

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.

To 1)The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District.

2)The Inspector of Police, Kulathur Police Station, Tuticorin District.

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

ORDER MADE IN DATED : 16.12.2020 KM (04.01.2021) 3P 4C 3/3