A.Soundar v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.10.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16604 of 2023 A.Soundar

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West Police Station, Tuticorin District.

3.Lakshmi

...Respondents

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to direct the Respondents No.1 & 2 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner life and limb and his family member, on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 19.08.2023.

For Petitioner :Mr.Porkodi Karnan For Respondent :Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar for R1 & R2 Government Advocate (Crl. Side) :Mr.V.P.Rajan for R3 1/5

O RDER This criminal original petition has been filed seeking direction to the Respondents No.1 & 2 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner's life and limb and his family member, on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 19.08.2023.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that private respondents are not having any right over the property. But, they are making trouble. Earlier, Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8306 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner seeking similar relief. That was disposed of by directing the officials to dispose the representation of the petitioner by summoning the petitioner. Subsequent to the above said order, it is submitted by the petitioner that private respondents appeared before the concerned authority and gave undertaking that they will not make any trouble to the petitioner. In spite of the undertaking, still they created trouble.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that during the course of enquiry, it was found that the petitioner is the owner of the disputed 2/5

property. The third respondent obtained patta by mis-representation. That was also cancelled by District Revenue Officer. Challenging the above said order, he filed writ petition. It is stated to be pending before this Court. 4.The third respondent's counsel would submit that it is the property issue between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. She purchased the property in the year 2006 from the original owner. After that this petitioner purchased the very same property in the year 2010. Because of the said issue, rival claim is made. 5.In view of the above said submissions, let them workout their remedy through civil process. There is no question of granting police protection to the petitioner at this stage.

6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. Speaking : Yes / No 18.10.2023 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No TM To 3/5

1.The Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West Police Station, Tuticorin District.

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

4/5

G.ILANGOVAN. J.

TM Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16604 of 2023 18.10.2023 5/5