← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/10462/2025disposed of

S.Saroja v. The State Of Tamilnadu

2025-09-11Honourable Mr Justice Sunder Mohan4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10462 of 2025 S.Saroja ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Superintendent of Police, Thiruchirappalli District, Thiruchirappalli.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Musiri Sub Division, Thiruchirappalli District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Thathaiyangar Pettai, Musiri Taluk, Thiruchirappalli District.

4.K.S.Kumar

...Respondents

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to give necessary Police protection to the petitioner's life and limb on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 05.06.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.Nagendran.V For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor For R4 : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi 1/4

ORDER

The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to give Police protection to the petitioner on the basis of her representation, dated 05.06.2025.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner's husband was running a business under the name and style of K.S.Bus service, which was operating a stage carriage; and that after his demise on 16.07.2024, the petitioner has been operating the bus service.

3. It is the case of the fourth respondent that from the beginning, the fourth respondent, who is the son of the petitioner, has been running the said bus service along with his father; that the offence of theft would not made out and that the dispute is between the mother and the son as to who should run the bus service.

4. The second respondent has already filed a report, stating that the dispute is civil in nature. However, if the 4th respondent had removed the buses from the mother's possession, it would certainly be an offence. If theft has been committed by the 4th respondent, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are bound to 2/4

register an FIR as against the fourth respondent.

5. Hence, the Deputy Superintedent of Police, Lalkudi, is directed to conduct a fresh enquiry, summon both parties to produce the relevant documents to prove as to who was running the said bus service, after demise of the husband of the petitioner/father of the fourth respondent. It is needless to state that if it is found that the 4th respondent had removed the buses from the possession of the petitioner, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi shall register an FIR and if it is found that the 4th respondent had been operating the bus service continuously, the complaint of the petitioner may be closd.

6. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

11.09.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Indu 3/4

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Indu To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruchirappalli District, Thiruchirappalli.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Musiri Sub Division, Thiruchirappalli District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Thathaiyangar Pettai, Musiri Taluk, Thiruchirappalli District.

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

Crl.O.P(MD).No.10462 of 2025 11.09.2025 4/4