Renganayaki v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.09.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Renganayaki ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palani Division, Dindigul District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Palani Town Police Station, Palani Town and Taluk, Dindigul District.

4.R.Kumaresan 5.K.Muthulakshmi ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner's life and limb and her property comprised in T.S.No.11/1A1A1B1A situated at Appar Street, Palani Town and Taluk, Dindigul District by considering her representation dated 19.08.2021.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Gangai Amaran For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner's life and limb and her property comprised in T.S.No.11/1A1A1B1A situated at Appar Street, Palani Town and Taluk, Dindigul District by considering her representation dated 19.08.2021. 2.From the records, it appears that the petitioner and the fourth respondent are the husband and wife.

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 1/3

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is a continuous trouble arouse between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Hence, the fourth respondent appears to have given a complaint which was assigned in C.S.R.No.106 of 2019 and the same was closed. Later, this petitioner gave a representation which was enquired in C.S.R.No.553 of 2021 and it was closed on 07.08.2021 stating that it is a family dispute and the parties gave statement to the effect that they will work out their remedy before the Civil Court. Further, on perusal of the statement given by the parties, maintenance has been ordered to be paid by the fourth respondent, but, he did not pay the amount to the petitioner, because of the lockdown period. However, the fourth respondent has given an undertaking that the amount will be properly paid. 5.In view of the above submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, granting of police protection may not arise at all. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS I) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) 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 Office of the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palani Division, Dindigul District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Palani Town Police Station, Palani Town and Taluk, Dindigul District.

2/3

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

03.09.2021 RS (16.09.2021) 3P 5C 3/3