← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/17283/2022closed

K.Thangaraj v. The Superintendent Of Police

2022-11-14Honourable Mr Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.11.2022 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Crl.O.P(MD).No.17283 of 2022 K.Thangaraj, : Petitioner Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram

2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Paramakudi Circle,

3. The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Taluk Police Station, Paramakudi,

4. D.Rajendran, : Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying, to direct the respondents to provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his properties situated at Ramanathapuram District, Paramakudi Taluk, Manjoor Village vide patta No.820 in survey numbers 197/2, 197/3 and 197/5, in the light of the order made in K:/K:/m2/2408/2022, 1/4

dated 10.05.2022, on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi and on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 20.07.2022. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kaliraj For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his properties situated at Ramanathapuram District, Paramakudi Taluk, Manjoor Village vide patta No.820.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this petition has been filed seeking police protection for the petitioner and his family members and his properties.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that when the petitioner's representation, date 20.07.2022, was taken up for enquiry, it was found that the subject matter is civil in nature. Hence the same was closed and the petitioner shall approach the civil Court for appropriate remedy. 4.By way of rejoinder, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner 2/4

submits that the fourth respondent disturbed his peaceful possession of the property and the petitioner is the actual owner of the property. For maintaining the property, the petitioner appointed one Selvamaniammal. While so, the fourth respondent had attempted to trespass and grab the same. 5.As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), the subject matter relates to a civil dispute. Hence the petitioner is directed to approach the civil Court and obtain appropriate order. 6.With the above direction, this criminal original petition stands closed. 14.11.2022 Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No lr To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram

2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Paramakudi Circle, 3/4

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

lr

3. The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Taluk Police Station, Paramakudi, 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

14.11.2022 4/4