Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/10384/2019closed

Sivaranjini v. The Superintendent Of Police

2019-07-24Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.07.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10384 of 2019 Sivaranjani ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District 2.The Inspector of Police Kuruvikulam Police Station Kuruvikulam, Tirunelveli District 3.The Inspector of Police V.K.Pudur Police Station V.K.Pudur, Tirunelveli District 4.Vetrivel

...Respondents

Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to issue a direction, directing the second respondent to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner and her husband namely Manikkam based on the representation dated 16.07.2019.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Selva For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.K.Suyambuling Bharathi Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner and her husband namely Manikkam based on the representation dated 16.07.2019.

2.The grievance of the petitioner is that she got married to one Manickam, it is a intercaste marriage, now the fourth respondent, who is the father of the petitioner giving life threat to the petitioner and her husband. Hence, the petitioner has approached the second respondent police seeking for police protection, but so far, no action has been taken by the second

respondent police. Hence, the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed.

3.Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, on instructions, would submit that based on the complaint given by the petitioner, an enquiry has been conducted, in which, the petitioner has not appeared and her cell phone was also switched off. Thereafter, the second respondent police went to the residence of the petitioner's husband to find out whereabouts of the petitioner, but the second respondent police did not find her. That apart, the father of the petitioner was called by the second respondent police for enquiry, in which he has stated that he has not given any life threat to the petitioner. Now after enquiry, the complaint has been closed by the second respondent police.

4. Considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that, based on the complaint given by the petitioner, an enquiry has been conducted, in which the father of the petitioner has submitted that he has not given any life threat to the petitioner and her husband, no further order is required in this case. However, if at all any life threat to the petitioner and her husband in future, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the second respondent police for seeking police protection.

5.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To:

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

+1 CC to M/s.V.SELVA, Advocate ( SR-77375[F] dated 24/07/2019 ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10384 of 2019 24.07.2019 msa JMN(16.08.2019) 3P : 6C