← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/20009/2022disposed of

Chinnapoovan v. The Superintendent Of Police

2022-11-23Honourable Mr Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.11.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Crl.O.P (MD) No.20009 of 2022 Chinnapoovan

...Petitioner

vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vedasandur, Dindigul District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Eriyodu Police Station, Dindigul District.

4.Periyasangan 5.Chinnapoovan 6.Kanniammal 7.Rasu @ Veerasangam 8.Ponnusamy 1/4

9.Ooran

...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to direct the 2nd Respondent herein to monitor the 3rd Respondent to provide necessary Police Protection to the life and limb of the Petitioner and his family and to the properties of the Petitioner situated in S.Nos.100/1B, 100/1E, 101/3, 100/1A, 100/1D, 100/F, 100/1H, 100/1I, 100/1L, 101/2, 195/3, 16/10, 19/1B, 19/1C, 19/2, 20/1, 20/2, 1064/12, 16/7, 194/2, 195/2, 97/2, 16/20 and 94/2 at Malapatti, Paganatham Village, Eriyodu Sub Registration District, Palani Registration District, Dindigul District mentioned in the decree passed by the District Court, Vedasandur on 28.11.2018 in O.S.No.100 of 2012.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthil Kumar For R1 to R3 : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition had been filed to direct the second Respondent to monitor the third Respondent to provide necessary Police Protection to the life and limb of the Petitioner and his family and to the properties of the Petitioner situated in S.Nos.100/1B, 100/1E, 101/3, 100/1A, 100/1D, 100/F, 100/1H, 100/1I, 100/1L, 101/2, 195/3, 16/10, 19/1B, 19/1C, 19/2, 20/1, 20/2, 1064/12, 16/7, 194/2, 195/2, 97/2, 16/20 and 2/4

94/2 at Malapatti, Paganatham Village, Eriyodu Sub Registration District, Palani Registration District, Dindigul District. 2.It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondents 4 to 6 are the plaintiffs in the suit. The suit filed by them was dismissed after trial. In spite of the same, they are harassing the Petitioner from entering into the field for cultivation. Therefore, the Petitioner had sought police protection.

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the enquiry is pending with the third Respondent and the same is going on.

4.The Petitioner is directed to cooperate with the pending enquiry. The third Respondent is directed to follow the guidelines issued in the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2014) 2 SSC 1. 3/4

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP , J.

mm 5.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

Internet:Yes/No 23.11.2022 Index:Yes/No mm To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vedasandur, Dindigul District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Eriyodu Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

Crl.O.P (MD) No.20009 of 2022 4/4