D. Gnanagiri Babu v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 13881 of 2025 D. Gnanagiri Babu ... Petitioner Vs

1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep.By. the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Race Course Road, Madurai.

2. The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Sivakasi East Police Station, Sivakasi.

4. G.V.Karthik

5. Tr.Baskar.

... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya 1/6

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 to direct the fourth respondent to give necessary police protection for the petitioner life and limb based on the petitioner's representation dated 02.08.2025. For petitioner : Mr.J.Sivaram For respondents : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 to R3 Mr.N.Dilip Kumar for R4 *****

ORDER

The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to protect the life and limb of the petitioner based on the representation dated 02.08.2025.

2. According to the petitioner, he is one of the legal heirs of one D.G.Dharmar, who was running a press in the name and style of 'Carnation Litho Works', on the land measuring 140 cents; that the fourth respondent is attempting to grab the property, which was inherited by him, by illegal means and threatening him that he would be done away with by him, if he did not sell the property to the fourth respondent.

2/6

3. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent, per contra, would submit that the allegations are false; that the fourth respondent is also one of the legal heirs and is entitled to the disputed property; that allegation of the threat to sell the property is false and without disclosing the relationship between the properties and the rights of the fourth respondent in the property, the petitioner has filed this Petition with vague allegation.

4. The learned counsel would further submit that in an earlier W.P. Crl. (MD) No.371 of 2025, this Court by an order dated 02.07.2025 had closed the petition observing that the apprehension of the petitioner herein that the official respondents, namely, Inspector of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivakasi, were interfering with the civil dispute is unfounded, as the complaint filed by him was closed. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that under the guise of this petition, the petitioner is actually seeking the help of the police to interfere in a civil dispute.

5. This Court is of the view that the petitioner has suppressed the relationship between the petitioner and the fourth respondent and the fact that the 3/6

fourth respondent also has rights in the property. The dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent is with regard to the rights over the property.

6. The respondents 1 to 3 do not have any right to interfere with such a dispute. The allegation of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent and his henchmen threatened the petitioner which is also without any basis.

7. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. However, if the petitioner makes any complaint disclosing any cognizance offence, the respondents 1 to 3 may deal with the same in accordance with law.

8. With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

Index : Yes / No 04.09.2025 Internet : Yes / No apd 4/6

To

1. The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Race Course Road, Madurai.

2. The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Sivakasi East Police Station, Sivakasi.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai 5/6

SUNDER MOHAN , J.

apd Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 13881 of 2025 04.09.2025 6/6