M.Karthik @ Karthik Raja v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.08.2025 CORAM :

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI M.Karthik @ Karthik Raja ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2.The Inspector of Police, Thirugokarnam Police Station, Pudukottai District.

... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, to direct the third respondent to provide adequate Police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner based on the petitioner's representations dated 30.07.2025 and 04.08.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.Shaazim Shagar For Respondents : Mr.P.Kottaichamy, Government Advocate(Crl.side) 1/6

ORDER

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to provide adequate Police protection to him. 2.The petitioner claims that he is the District Secretary of the political party called Mukkulathor Pulippadai Party. He claims that he is facing life threat and therefore, seeks for police protection, based on his representations, dated 30.07.2025 and 04.08.2025. 3.It would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramveer Upadhyaya Vs. R.M.Srivastava and others reported in 2013 (7) Scale 564, wherein it has been held as follows: "7.However, in our experience, we have hardly seen any security of 'Z' or 'Y' catergory provided to any ordinary citizen howsoever, grave the threat perception or imminent danger may be to the person concerned. The petitioner, however, has claimed it obviously as a 'privileged class' by virtue of being an ex-minister which at times, may be justified even to an ex-minister or any 2/6

other dignitary, considering the nature and function of the duties which he had discharged, which could facilitate the assessment of his threat perception even after laying down the office. But what exactly is his threat perception and whether the same is grave in nature, obviously will have to be left to be decided by the authorities including the authorities of the State or the Centre which may include even the Intelligence Bureau or any other authority concerned which is entitled to assess the threat perception of an individual.

But in so far as the Court of law is concerned, it would obviously be in a predicament to come to any conclusion as to whether the threat perception alleged by a person claiming security is grave or otherwise which would hold him entitled to the security of a greater degree, since this is clearly a question of factual nature to be dealt with by the authorities entrusted with the duty to provide security after assessing the need and genuineness of the threat to any individual." 4.As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the threat perception as alleged by the petitioner is clearly a question of factual nature to be dealt with by the authorities concerned, after assessing the need and genuineness of the threat perception.

3/6

5.In view of the above, this criminal original petition is closed. 21.08.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes gns 4/6

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thirugokarnam Police Station, Pudukottai District.

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

5/6

B.PUGALENDHI,J gns 21.08.2025 6/6