Saravanan v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.07.2024 CORAM :
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Crl.OP(MD)No.10394 of 2024
1. Saravanan
2. Sivasangari ... Petitioners Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Valanadu Police Station, Trichy District.
3.Sreenivasan
...Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to provide police protection to the life and limb of the petitioners against the life threat perceived from the respondent no.3 on the basis of the petitioners' complaint dt. 05.07.2024.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Anbarasan For R1 and R2 : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor For R3 : Mr.M.Kumar 1/5
O R D E R
Seeking police protection, the petitioners have approached this Court.
2.The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner is working as a Master in Hotel and the second petitioner is an Engineering graduate. They loved each other for the past three years. However, the second petitioner was forced to marriage the third respondent, who is her maternal uncle and the marry was also forcibly performed on 10.06.2024. Since the marriage was performed on compulsion, the second petitioner has left her matrimonial home and joined with the first petitioner and they got married on 01.07.2024. According to the petitioners, they are under the apprehension of life threat. Hence, both of them has jointly submitted a representation to the respondents on 05.07.2024, seeking police protection.
3.Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice for the respondents 1 & 2 and submits that the third respondent has lodged a complaint before the Manapparai Police station 2/5
as ''woman missing'' and a case in Crime No.301 of 2024 has also been registered.
4.The learned counsel for the third respondent submits that with the consent of the second petitioner only, the marriage was performed. When the first marriage between the third respondent and the second petitioner is in existence, the second marriage performed by her with the first petitioner is not valid.
5.The petitioners are present before this Court. The second petitioner submits that she had a love affair with the first petitioner and knowing that, the marriage was forcibly arranged with the third respondent. She waited for an opportunity and she left the matrimonial home and joined with the first petitioner she got married with the first petitioner on 01.07.2024.
6.After the above statement of the second petitioner, the learned counsel for the third respondent submits that he is not inclined to prosecute the case in Crime No.301 of 2024. He further submits that he will not interfere with the second petitioner's life. 3/5
7.Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the third respondent, this Criminal Original petition is closed. 12.07.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No vrn To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Valanadu Police Station, Trichy District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4/5
B.PUGALENDHI,J vrn Order made in Crl.OP(MD)No.10394 of 2024 12.07.2024 5/5