← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/12213/2022closed

Muniyandi v. The Superintendent Of Police

2022-07-07Honourable Mr Justice V.Sivagnanam6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.07.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM CRL.O.P (MD) No.12213 of 2022 Muniyandi ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station, Madurai District.

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sabtur Police Station, Madurai District.

4.Subbiah ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to direct the third respondent to accord adequate Police Protection to the life and limb of the petitioner based on the complaint given by the petitioner on 20.06.2022.

1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar 1 to 3 Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal original Petition has been filed to direct the third respondent to accord adequate Police Protection to the life and limb of the petitioner based on the complaint given by the petitioner on 20.06.2022. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is a pathway dispute pending between the petitioner and the fourth respondent, due to which, the fourth respondent said to have waylaid the petitioner and abused him by using filthy language and also attacked him with aruval. Thereafter, the petitioner had sent a complaint to the respondents 1 to 3 to take action. Since no action has been taken, the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed. 3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that after receiving the complaint from the 2/6

petitioner, the third respondent Police has issued C.S.R.No.141 of 2022 and enquiry has been conducted. During the enquiry, the fourth respondent has recorded the statements of local persons residing near the place of occurrence, namely, Paul Thevar and kasimaya Thevar, in which, it is found that there is a dispute between the petitioner and fourth respondent with regard to the pathway and no such occurrence has been taken place as stated by the petitioner and it is a false complaint. Hence, the third respondent Police has closed the complaint.

4.On perusal of the materials available on records, it is seen that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent with regard to the pathway. The fourth respondent is the adjacent land owner of the petitioner and he has given trouble to the petitioner. Hence, he gave a complaint before the third respondent and C.S.R.No.141 of 2022 has been issued and the third respondent enquired the matter. During the enquiry, the fourth respondent recorded the statements of the local persons residing near the place of occurrence and come to conclusion that there is no such occurrence took place as stated by the complainant, hence, closed the complaint.

3/6

5.Recording the same, this Criminal Original Petition is closed. 07.07.2022 Internet:Yes./No Index:Yes/no vsg 4/6

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station, Madurai District.

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sabtur Police Station, Madurai District.

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

5/6

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

vsg ORDER IN CRL.O.P (MD) No.12213 of 2022 07.07.2022 6/6