Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/15098/2021dismissed

R.Sureshkanna v. The Superintendent Of Police

2021-10-05Honourable Mr Justice G.Ilangovan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.10.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15098 of 2021 R.SureshKanna ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Nainarkovil Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

3.Thangavel 4.Lakshmanan 5.L.Tamilselvan 6.Rajendran 7.Boomibalan 8.Pushpa 9.Vishvanathan 10.Arumugam 11.Banumathi 12.Shanmugam 13.Banumathi 14.Kannuchamy 15.Thanabackkiam 16.Ramayee 17.Kailasam ... Respondents 1/3

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to provide adequate Police protection to the petitioner as and when he visits his native village and ensure that he is not excommunicated by the private respondents by considering the petitioner representation dated 18.07.2020.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gowrishankar For R1 & R2 : Mr.RMS.Sethuraman Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This petition is filed seeking police protection, on the basis of the representation dated 18.07.2020.

2.When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that based upon the representation made by this petitioner dated 24.05.2019, enquiry was undertaken in CSR.No.145 of 2019 and during the course of enquiry, the petitioner in spite of repeated summons did not appear and due to the non-cooperation of the petitioner, it came to be closed on 16.11.2020. It is also to be noted that both parties gave a complaint against each other repeatedly. So, further action was also dropped. 3.Since the representation made by this petitioner came to be closed as early as on 16.11.2020 itself, the contention on the part of the petitioner that he sent another communication dated 18.07.2020 is not acceptable.

Because of the non-cooperation of the petitioner and also finding the fact that both parties are repeatedly giving a complaint against each other, the complaint came to be closed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, providing police protection to any one of the parties on the basis of the representation dated 18.07.2020 may not be proper . I find absolutely no merit in this petition.

4.This petition stands dismissed, accordingly. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) mm 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. 2/3

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Nainarkovil Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

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

05.10.2021 NSN(CO) KB/UV(29.10.2021) 3P 4C 3/3