M.Kaviarasan v. The Commissioner Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN 1.M.Kaviarasan 2.Manisha
...Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai City, Madurai.
4.The Inspector of Police, Thiruppullani Police Station, Thiurppullani, Ramanathapuram District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Devipattinam Police Station, Devipattinam, Ramanathapuram District.
1/6
6.Muruganandam 7.Shanthi 8.Vijayan ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to direct the respondent Nos.3 to 5 to give adequate and appropriate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioners based on the petitioners' complaint, dated 22.08.2023.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Saravanan For R1 to R5 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.Side) O RDER This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking for police protection from the respondent Police to the petitioners' life and limb.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner No.2 has married the petitioner No.1 belonging to other Caste against the wishes and interest of parents of the second petitioner, on which, the parents of the second petitioner i.e., respondent Nos.6 and 7 have filed a complaint before the fifth respondent as "Girl Missing" and a case has been registered. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have approached the third respondent Police and accordingly, they have been residing within the 2/6
territorial jurisdiction of the third respondent Police. It is submitted that, during the course of enquiry by the fifth respondent Police, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were asked to appear and during the course of which, they suspected that respondent Nos.6 and 7 may likely to do away the life of the first petitioner. Therefore, sought for suitable directions.
3. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the third respondent has assured fullest protection to the petitioners and gave them the mobile number of the concerned Officer, in case, if the petitioners require any sought of protection, they would immediately provide. It is also submitted that the fifth respondent Police have not been calling the petitioners for any enquiry and in fact, the fifth respondent Police called the father of the second petitioner for the enquiry in respect of a complaint given by the sixth respondent in respect of the jewels which were allegedly taken by the second petitioner left the house along with the first petitioner.
4. In view of the submissions made by both sides and on perusal of records, the respondent Police are directed not to call petitioners 1 and 2 for any sought of enquiry other than the third respondent Police until the issue subsists. This Court has also taken note of the submissions of the learned Government 3/6
Advocate (Criminal Side) that the third respondent Police are providing police protection to the petitioners whenever requires and the third respondent Police have also been attending the place and to see that they are safe. The same is recorded.
5. Accordingly, the criminal original petition is disposed of. Speaking : Yes / No 12.09.2023 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No tsg 4/6
To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai City, Madurai.
4.The Inspector of Police, Thiruppullani Police Station, Thiurppullani, Ramanathapuram District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Devipattinam Police Station, Devipattinam, Ramanathapuram District.
6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
DR.D.NAGARJUN. J.
tsg Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15849 of 2023 12.09.2023 6/6