L.Ravi v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.11.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU L.Ravi ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Inspector of Police, Chinnalapatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

3.K.Muthuramalingam ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.10.2020 and provide sufficient police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Chandrakumar For R1 and R2 : Mr.V.Neelakandan, Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.10.2020 and provide sufficient police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The petitioner has purchased a property in Survey No.134/41 and registered with the Sub Registrar office, Chinnalapatti on 28.06.2019.The 3rd respondent is the owner of the adjacent land to the petitioner's land and he has wrong intention to grab the petitioner's property. Hence, the petitioner has filed O.S.No.287 of 2019 on 22.08.2019 for the relief of permanent injunction and declaration. Subsequent to that, the 3rd respondent and his henchmen made assault and criminal intimidation to the petitioner on 28.05.2020. In this regard, the petitioner gave complaint before the 3rd respondent police. FIR in Crime No.441 of 2020, under Sections 294(b), 452, 506(ii) of IPC against the 3rd respondent and others has also been registered. In the meantime, in 1/3

the suit filed by the petitioner, interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner. Even after, the petitioner obtained interim injunction in his favour on 29.09.2020, the 3rd respondent is frequently made an attempt to grab the petitioner's land. Hence, the petitioner made a representation on 02.10.2020 to the second respondent, for giving police protection. But, so far no action has been taken by the respondent police. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2, on instructions, would submit that the complaint of the petitioner, dated 29.05.2020, has been received by the respondent police and based on which, FIR in Crime No.441 of 2020 also been registered.

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

5.Considering the submission made on either side, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 02.10.2020 and give police protection to the petitioner, if necessary. If it is found that police protection is not necessary, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner so that he can work out his rights in the manner known to law. 6.With the above direction, this criminal original petition is disposed of.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) vrn 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 Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2/3

2.The Inspector of Police, Chinnalapatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

09.11.2020 VB (23.11.2020) 3P 4C 3/3