Noor Mohamed v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN W.P.Crl.(MD).No.1731 of 2025 and W.M.P.Crl.(MD).Nos.412 and 413 of 2025 Noor Mohamed ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District, Office of the District Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi - 627 811.

2.Station House Officer, Alangulam Police Station, Tenkasi District.

3.The District Collector, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

4.Arikrishnan

...Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents no.1 and 2 to grant police protection to the petitioner's windmills in S.No.840/16, Mayamankurichi Village, Alangulam Taluk, Tenkasi District and also to take action and initiate prosecution against the offenders on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 15.09.2025 within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor For R-3 : Mr.A.Oli Raja Government Advocate For R-4 : Mr.C.Sureshkannan

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed for Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.09.2025 and consequently grant police protection to the petitioner's wind mills in S.No.840/16, Mayamankurichi Village, Alangulam Taluk, Tenkasi District and also to take action and initiate prosecution against the offenders.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is in possession of the disputed property and is running the windmill for the past 18 years; that the fourth respondent, who is working as a Revenue Inspector, had illegally trespassed into the property and had damaged the property belonging to the petitioner; that he had given two complaints; that the official respondents are not taking any action in view of the official position held by the fourth respondent and had thus sought for police protection.

2/5

3. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent however would submit that the allegations are false; that two earlier complaints given by the petitioner were closed as civil in nature advising the parties to approach the Civil Court; that the petitioner is constantly harassing the fourth respondent by filing repeated complaints.

4. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent.

5. It is needless to say that the respondent Police would not interfere in any civil dispute. However, if any cognizable offence is made out on the complaint given by the petitioner, the respondent Police shall act on the same. The respondent Police shall conduct such enquiry and conclude the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after hearing all the parties concerned. As regards the prayer for police protection to protect the petitioner's possession, this Court is of the view that it is for the petitioner to seek remedy before the Civil Court. 3/5

6. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

06.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Lm To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District, Office of the District Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi - 627 811.

2.Station House Officer, Alangulam Police Station, Tenkasi District.

3.The District Collector, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

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

4/5

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Lm W.P.Crl.(MD).No.1731 of 2025 06.11.2025 5/5