Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/19023/2024disposed of

Rajaguru v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

2024-11-05Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.11.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR R.Rajaguru : Petitioner Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu rep., by The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, K.Pudur, Madurai 625 007.

2.The Inspector of Police, Theppakulam Police Station, Madurai District.

3.R.Shriram : Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to direct the second respondent to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner for his life and limp on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 26.09.2024.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sankar For R1 & R2 : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor 1/5

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner by considering his representation dated 26.09.2024.

2. On 14.09.2007, the petitioner owned the property in T.S.No.552, New No.171 to an extent of 550 sq.ft of Anuppandi Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District. Adjacent to the property, the third respondent, who is the young brother of the petitioner, namely, Shriram, is residing. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he was denied his own pathway by the third respondent stating that the same is common pathway. Further, when the petitioner attempted to put up a compound wall to his property, the same was objected by the third respondent and also threatened him. In this regard, the petitioner made a complaint to the second respondent and the same was forwarded to Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai. Since the land comes under the corporation, the Tahsildar, Madurai South, by communication dated 09.08.2024, had addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, Zone 4, Madurai. Following the same, the petitioner's land was measured and boundary were also marked. 2/5

The petitioner's apprehension is that due to his old age and his son is working at abroad, taking advantage of the petitioner the third respondent is continuously threatening the petitioner and he is not able to construct compound wall in his land. Hence, he sent a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 to give adequate police protection, however, no action has been taken so far. Hence, this petition.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the petitioner's land has been measured and boundaries were marked. Further, submits that appropriate instructions would be given to the second respondent to ensure the safety of the petitioner. The petitioner can have his compound wall.

4. Recording the same, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. The respondent police shall ensure the safety of the petitioner. 05.11.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Rmk 3/5

M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.

Rmk To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, K.Pudur, Madurai 625 007.

2.The Inspector of Police, Theppakulam Police Station, Madurai District 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

05.11.2024 5/5