← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/11876/2025disposed of

V.Shanmugasundaram v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

2025-10-24Honourable Mr Justice Sunder Mohan6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 17.10.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 24.10.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN V.Shanmugasundaram ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

2. The Inspector of Police, W1, Thirunagar Police Station, Madurai.

...Respondents

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to direct the 2nd respondent to provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members with separate armed police official within the stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.NR.Elango, Sr. Counsel for Mr.Arun Prasath G For Respondents : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor Page No. 1 of 6

O R D E R

The petitioner seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to provide police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members by deploying an armed police official.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is working as a Senior Manager, Administration, Human Resource Management and Public Relationship Official of Hi-Tech Arai Private Limited, Madurai; that the petitioner is administrating the entire company and resolving issues relating to the employees and other factory workers; that the company is involved in manufacture of rubber and aluminum products for twowheelers and four-wheelers; that there are more than 7000 workers; that since the petitioner is involved in addressing all the issues relating to the employees, he had received threats on several occasions; that in view of the same, he made a request to the District Collector for pistol licence; that considering the said threat perception, he was granted pistol licence and now he is in possession of a pistol; that since the threat perception still exists, unless the respondents provide an armed police official for his security, his life would be in danger.

Page No. 2 of 6

3. The respondents have filed a Status Report, stating that a secret enquiry was conducted; that the neighbours of the petitioner, the employees, the factory workers and the persons in the Management of Thiruparangundram Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Temple, in which the petitioner is a Trustee were all enquired; that all of them stated that there is no threat to the petitioner; and therefore submitted that if the petitioner intends to have a security guard, he may employ them from private companies.

4. Mr.NR.Elango, learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that even as late as on 15.10.2025, the petitioner had lodged a complaint stating that he was followed by certain unidentified persons and those persons intercepted the petitioner who was travelling in a car and abused him in filthy language; that another complaint was lodged by him on 10.10.2025 since a few persons abused him in filthy language and CSRs are pending in connection with the said complaints; that only because the Collector felt that the petitioner is required to possess a pistol, a license was granted; and therefore, the petitioner may be given an armed guard at the petitioner's expense. The learned senior counsel relied upon Page No. 3 of 6

the orders passed by this Court in similar circumstances directing the police to provide an armed guard.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, reiterated the contents of the status report and submitted that though it is a fact that the petitioner has a pistol license, the enquiry revealed that the petitioner is not facing any threat to his life.

6. Taking into consideration the nature of job done by the petitioner, that a pistol license has been issued to him in view of a life threat and the complaints filed by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to direct the 1st respondent to consider deploying an armed guard for a period of six months. The cost shall be computed by the 1st respondent, which shall be paid by the petitioner in advance. After the expiry of six months, the 1st respondent shall take stock of the situation and take a decision on the continuation of the police protection.

7. The petitioner shall send a fresh representation to the respondents furnishing the details of the recent threats and the complaints lodged by him and thereafter, the respondents may consider the request in terms of the above order.

Page No. 4 of 6

8. With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

24.10.2025 ars/dk Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking Order Copy To:

1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, W1, Thirunagar Police Station, Madurai.

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

Page No. 5 of 6

SUNDER MOHAN , J.

ars/dk Pre-delivery order in 24.10.2025 Page No. 6 of 6