Antony Sekar v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.10.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Antony Sekar

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police Dindigul District, Dindigul

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Dindigul District, Dindigul

3. The Inspector of Police Sanarpatti Police Station Dindigul District

4. M.Francis Rethinam

5. M.Andrus

6. M.Savarinayakam

7. C.Santhi Salomi

8. Jeyarosari

...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 1st and 2nd respondent to provide adequate police protection to the Petitioner and his church members and to workers at the time of laying the fencing work in the Petitioners church land bearing survey No. 326/4 situated at Vembarpatti, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District on the basis of the representation given by the petitioner on 21.09.2019. For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman For Respondents : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi 1 to 3 Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking direction to direct the 1st and 2nd respondent to provide adequate police protection to the Petitioner and his church members and to workers at the time of laying the fencing work in the Petitioners church land bearing survey No. 326/4 situated at Vembarpatti, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District on the basis of the representation given by the petitioner on 21.09.2019.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property comprised in S.No.326/4, admeasuring 67 cents situated at 1/3

Vembarpatti, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District. While being so, the respondents 4 to 8 indulged in illegal activities and disturb the peaceful possession of the property. Infact they filed suit I O.S.No.8 of 2006 for permanent injunction on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Dindigul and the same was also dismissed. Even then the respondents 4 to 8 are disturbing the possession and enjoyment and also obstructing the workers at the time of laying fencing work in the petitioner's property. Therefore he sought for police protection from respondents 4 to 8

3. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, already CSR was issued, enquiry was conducted and closed. Again on 21.01.2019 the petitioner sent representation and it is under enquiry.

4. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case the third respondent is directed to conduct enquiry on the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 21.01.2019 after giving notice to respondents 4 to 8 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

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

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (co) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) aav To

1. The Superintendent of Police Dindigul District, Dindigul

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Dindigul District, Dindigul

3. The Inspector of Police Sanarpatti Police Station Dindigul District 2/3

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court +1 CC to M/s.K.R. BADURUS ZAMAN, Advocate ( SR-90653[F] dated 01/10/2019 ) 01.10.2019 KM/(15.10.2019) 3P 6C 3/3