← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/17188/2016dismissed

Arulammal v. The Inspector Of Police

2020-06-03Honourable Dr Justice G. Jayachandran2 pages

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17188 of 2016 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.06.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17188 of 2016 Arulammal

...Petitioner

vs.

1.The Inspector of Police, R.S.Mangalam Police Station, R.S.Mangalam, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, R.S.Mangalam Police Station, R.S.Mangalam, Ramanathapuram District.

3.Irudhayaraj

...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the respondents police to grant police protection to the petitioner to deal with the property in Survey Nos.15/2, 16/1, 24/7 and 21/2 and Natham Survey No.25/5E2 which is situated at R.S.Mangalam Group, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District by considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 20.08.2016. For Petitioner : No Appearance For R1 and R2 : Mr.R.Anandharaj Additional Public Prosecutor For R3 : M/s.J.Madhu

ORDER

No representation for the petitioner.

2.The petitioner herein, who is aged about 63 years in the year 2016, has filed this petition, seeking police protection to deal with the property in Survey Nos.15/2, 16/1, 24/7 and 21/2 and Natham Survey No.25/5E2 which is situated at R.S.Mangalam Group, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

3.According to her representation, the said property is owned by her and she has got that property through her ancestor. In the civil suit filed for partition, she has been allotted 5/9th share and pursuant to that, she filed execution petition. It appears that the first appeal has been preferred by the third respondent herein aggrieved by the decree passed in O.S.No.337 of 2019. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17188 of 2016 4.In the said circumstances, the petitioner has given a representation, alleging that the survey stones installed based on the direction of the civil court was removed by the third respondent and there is a threat to her life at the hands of the third respondent and his henchmen. Hence, she approached this Court seeking police protection.

5.After a lapse of four years, neither the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent nor the learned Additional Public Prosecutor are in a position to ascertain whether the alleged circumstances prevailed in the year 2016 still continues. 6.The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that the allegations made by the petitioner against them are all imaginary and fictitious and he never threatened the life of the petitioner.

7.In the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that at this length of time, nothing survives in the prayer of the petitioner herein. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for police protection, if there is any fresh threat incident or cause of action.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) sji To 1.The Inspector of Police, R.S.Mangalam Police Station, R.S.Mangalam, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, R.S.Mangalam Police Station, R.S.Mangalam, Ramanathapuram District.

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17188 of 2016 03.06.2020 KB(10.06.2020) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2