P.K.Varatharaj v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.22668 of 2025 P.K.Varatharaj ... Petitioner Vs.

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

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

3.Eswaramoorthy ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection for the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members and conduct enquiry based on the petitioner's representation dated 22.11.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Prabha for Mr.S.Gokulraj For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. side) 1/5

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection for the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members and conduct enquiry based on the petitioner's representation dated 22.11.2025.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's agricultural property in S.F.Nos.1274/2, 1272/1c, 1272/2 and 1274/2B is situated at R.Pudhukottai Village Guziliamparai Taluk, Dindigul District, comprised in an extent of 10 acres and 25 cents. The petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.7,49,000/- from the third respondent, for which, he had executed a sale deed on 09.04.2019 for security purpose. Though the petitioner has been regularly paying interest to the third respondent, on 22.11.2025 the third respondent along with his henchmen had trespassed into the petitioner's agricultural field and damaged gooney lily crop (Karunaikilangu) worth about Rs.10,00,000/-. In this regard, the petitioner had lodged a complaint 2/5

before the second respondent police on 22.11.2025. However, no progress has been seen. The third respondent has continuously been indulging in activities of threatening the petitioner and his family members with an intention to dispossess the petitioner from the said property. Hence, this petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent State, on instructions, would submit that the matter is all about money dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent, for which, the petitioner had executed a sale deed and when the police had called the respective parties for enquiry, the petitioner himself had given a written undertaking that he will return a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- along with interest. However, considering the civil nature of the dispute involved, the police have adviced the respective parties to workout their remedy before the appropriate forum. Based on the undertaking given by the petitioner as well as the third respondent, enquiry was closed directing the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum.

3/5

4. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), this Criminal Original Petition is Closed. 10.12.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Rmk To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

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

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

4/5

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Rmk CRL OP(MD)No.22668 of 2025 10.12.2025 5/5