K. Chanakkiyan. v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.09.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN K.Chanakkiyan ... Petitioner .Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dingiul.

2.The Inspector of Police, Ammayanaickanur Police Station, Pallapatti, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

3.Krishnamoorthy 4.Sarala 5.Sathyan 6.Athityan ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to direct the 2nd respondent to provide adequate police protection to petitioner's life and limb as claimed in representation, dated 08.07.2021 on the file of 2nd respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Vigneswaran For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to provide adequate police protection to petitioner's life and limb as claimed in representation, dated 08.07.2021 on his file.

2.The petitioner is the son of the 3rd respondent. It appears that they are residing separately. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that private respondents are having criminal background and claiming property right, they are trying to assault the petitioner. On that basis he gave a representation before the respondent police.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) based upon the representation made by the petitioner, enquiry was undertaken in CSR No.219 of 2021 and during the course of enquiry, it was found that 1/3

the dispute exists between the petitioner and the private respondents herein with regard to the partition of the ancestral property. The petitioner appears to have purchased a portion of property on 22.07.2020. In respect of which, the dispute arose between the petitioner and private respondents herein and an Advocate notice has also been issued on behalf of the petitioner. During the course of enquiry, private respondents also claimed right over the property. Finding that it is a civil dispute between the son and father, it was closed by advising the parties to work out their remedy through civil proceedings.

4.Since it appears that it is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents herein, the question of granting police protection does not arise. Repeated contention on the part of the petitioner that the private respondents are having criminal background and they are trying to kill, also appears to be not based upon proper facts. Hence, no police protection is required in this matter. If any threat with regard to the life of the petitioner arises in future, he may approach the second respondent for appropriate relief.

5.This criminal original petition is disposed of, accordingly. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) TM 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, Dindigul District, Dingiul.

2.The Inspector of Police, Ammayanaickanur Police Station, Pallapatti, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

2/3

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

+1 CC to M/s.G.VIGNESHWARAN, Advocate (SR-29940[F] dated 22/09/2021) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14099 of 2021 22.09.2021 GC(05.10.2021) 3P 5C 3/3