Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/12478/2021allowed

A.Saroja v. The Superintendent Of Police

2022-01-19Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.01.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Crl.O.P(MD)No.12478 of 2021 A.Saroja ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Superintendent of Police, Thiruchirappalli, Thiruchirappalli District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Musiri, Tiruchirappalli District.

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Uppiliyapuram Police Station, Thiruchirappalli District.

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Thiruchirappalli District.

5.Sivakumar ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner in accordance with Section 22(2) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi For R1 to R4 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.side) For R5 : No appearance

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for R1 to R4. R5 had been served and his name is also printed in the cause list. However, there is no representation on his behalf. 1/3

2. The petitioner is the mother of the fifth respondent. The petitioner alleges that she is being harassed by the fifth respondent. The petitioner was earlier attacked by her son and she was also hospitalised. The incident had taken place on 31.05.2021. In this regard, the petitioner had given a complaint on 05.06.2021. The local police have statutory duty to take care of safety as well as properties of the senior citizens. The act committed by the fifth respondent on the face of it amounts to cognizable offence.

3. The third respondent is directed to register an FIR based on the petitioner's complaint. The petitioner is warned not to go back on her complaint. The petitioner's counsel gives an undertaking that the petitioner will not withdraw her complaint against her son. The said undertaking is recorded. The third respondent is directed to take action as per law. The third respondent shall ensure the petitioner's safety and protect her from the fifth respondent.

4. This Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (W) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) rmi 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, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. To 1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Superintendent of Police, Thiruchirappalli, Thiruchirappalli District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Musiri, Tiruchirappalli District.

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Uppiliyapuram Police Station, Thiruchirappalli District.

2/3

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Thiruchirappalli District.

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

+1 CC to M/s.D.SHANMUGARAJA SETHUPATHI, Advocate ( SR-1761[F] dated 19/01/2022 ) Crl.O.P(MD)No.12478 of 2021 19.01.2022 MGJ(02.02.2022) 3P 7C 3/3