P. Alagu v. The Superintendent Of Police
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14456 of 2019 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.10.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14456 of 2019 P.Alagu ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police Dindigul District, Dindigul
2. The Inspector of Police Natham Police Station Dindigul District 3.Chinnu
4. Vellaiammal
5. Thangaraj 6.Gandhimathi 7.Rajakili
...Respondents
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner and his family members on the basis of the representation given by the petitioner on 20.09.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman For Respondents : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi No.1 & 2 Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner and his family members on the basis of the representation given by the petitioner on 20.09.2019
2. It is seen that the petitioner purchased a property in survey No.383/49 to an extent of 475Sq.ft at Thuvarapathy, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District from one Chinnalagan for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-. After purchasing the said property the petitioner was put in possession and enjoyment. Whileso the respondents 3 to 7 went to the said property and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. Since the said property belongs to him he filed a complaint. On the complaint the second respondent issued summons to the counter party and conduct enquiry. During enquiry it reveals that the counter parties are tenants under vendor of the petitioner for the disputed property. The counter parties categorically https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14456 of 2019 submitted that they paid a sum of Rs.50000/- as advance amount but they did not return the same to the vendor and as such there is dispute between the petitioner and the counter parties along with the vendor in respect of vacating the premises. Therefore the second respondentclosed the complaint as civil in nature. 3.At this stage, police protection cannot be provided to the petitioner. Hence the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However the petitioner is directed to approach to concerned forum for vacating the counter parties from the premises in the manner known to law.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (w) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) aav To
1. The Superintendent of Police Dindigul District, Dindigul
2. The Inspector of Police Natham Police Station Dindigul District
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.K.R.BADURUS ZAMAN, Advocate ( SR-91823[F] dated 15/10/2019 ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14456 of 2019 15.10.2019 KK/SAR/23.10.2019/2P-5C/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2