R.Senthil Kumar v. The Director General Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN W.P.Crl.(MD) No.1446 of 2025 and W.M.P.Crl.(MD) No.359 of 2025 R.Senthil Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director General of Police, Tamilnadu Police Department, Post Box No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Natham, Dindigul District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Dindigul District.

5.V.Raja

...Respondents

1/6

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to provide Police protection to the petitioner's life and the property situated at S.No.106/4A, Kalmadam Street, Natham, Dindigul District, based on his representation, dated 15.09.2025, within a time framed as may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Narendren For R1 to R4 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor For R5 : Mr.A.Jayaramachandran

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to provide Police protection to the petitioner's life and the property situated at S.No.106/4A, Kalmadam Street, Natham, Dindigul District, based on his representation, dated 15.09.2025.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the fifth respondent is attempting to encroach upon the petitioner's property and also demolish the wall of the petitioner's property.

2/6

3. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent would submit that the allegation of demolition of the wall is false; that in fact, in a suit filed by the fifth respondent (vendor), a settlement was arrived at and the same was recorded before the Lok Adalat; and that the petitioner is acting in violation of the settlement recorded by the Lok Adalat.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that an enquiry was, in fact, conducted and thereafter closed; and that the result of the enquiry was communicated to the petitioner.

5. Both the parties namely the petitioner and the fifth respondent agree that the settlement was arrived before the Lok Adalat and they accuse each other of violating the terms of the said settlement.

6. This Court is of the view that the question, whether there was a violation of the settlement, cannot be decided by the Police and hence, a direction as prayed for cannot be issued. However, if the complaint of the petitioner discloses a cognizable offence, it is needless to say the respondent No.4 would act on the same.

3/6

7. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the parties to seek appropriate remedy in the manner known to law. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any inaction of the respondents, it is open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

18.09.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Indu 4/6

To 1.The Director General of Police, Tamilnadu Police Department, Post Box No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Natham, Dindigul District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

5/6

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Indu W.P.Crl.(MD).No.1446 of 2025 18.09.2025 6/6