Amanullah Khan v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.02.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20980 of 2022 Amanullah Khan ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2.The Inspector of Police, Taluka Police Station, Dindigul District.

3.S.Balasubramani ... Respondents PRAYER:- Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to provide necessary and adequate police protection to the petitioner's life and property based on the petitioner's representation dated 23.11.2022. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Althaf Sheriff for M/s.Ajmal Associates For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.Manikandan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R3 : Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu 1/5

ORDER

This petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to provide necessary and adequate police protection to the petitioner's life and property based on the petitioner's representation dated 23.11.2022. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is civil dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent filed an appeal. That was decreed in favour of the petitioner. Against which, Second Appeal was also filed. That was also decreed in favour of the petitioner. Challenging the same, Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the consent decree by directing the Tahsildar of the area concerned to divide the total land half and half and the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and the third respondent. Even after compromise, the third respondent made a life threat to the petitioner and prevented him from fencing the property. Thereby, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents 1 & 2 on 23.11.2022 seeking police protection to fence the property and the same was not considered. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this Court may issue a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.11.2022, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1580, Home (Pol.VII) Department dated 24.11.2008, and pass appropriate orders. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State has no serious objection on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5.Considering the limited prayer sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court issued a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.11.2022, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1580, Home (Pol.VII) Department dated 24.11.2008, and pass appropriate orders.

6. With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. 21.02.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No dss 3/5

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

2.The Inspector of Police, Taluka Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

4/5

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

dss Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20980 of 2022 21.02.2024 5/5