J. Sugirtha v. The Superintendent Of Police, District Crime Branch,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI W.P.Crl.(MD).No.2595 of 2025 J.Sugirtha ....Petitioner Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Natchiyarkoil Police Station, Natchiyarkovil, Thanjavur District.

3. B.Clarance mary

4. J.Antonysamy

5. A.Ceceli John Cordia .....Respondent(s) Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1 and 2 respondents to take necessary action against the 3 to 5 respondents and give police protection to life and limb of the petitioner and her 1/7

family on the basis of the compliant given by the petitioner dated 06.12.2025 and 08.12.2025.

For Petitioner : Mrs.J.Balameenakshi For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.C.Susikumar Government Advocate(Crl.Side) For R3 to R5 : Mr.V.Sasikumar

ORDER

Seeking to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to take necessary action against the respondents 3 to 5 and give police protection to their life and limb on the basis of the petitioner's complaints dated 06.12.2025 and 08.12.2025, this writ petition is filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one Agustin is the petitioner's maternal uncle who had lived with the 3rd respondent without any marriage. During that time of living together, indifferences crept in between her uncle and the 3rd respondent, pursuant to which he had filed a civil suit in O.S.No.195 of 2002, on the file of the 2nd Additional District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam. The suit was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner's uncle had preferred an appeal in A.S.No.93 of 2006 on the file of the Principal 2/7

Sub Court, Kumbakonam, which was allowed in favour of the petitioner's uncle, declaring that the 3rd respondent is not his wife. The petitioner's uncle passed away on 02.10.2013.

3. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent had forged several documents and had created a false patta with respect to the properties of the deceased Agustin and had fraudulently created a sale deed in favour of the 4th and 5th respondents, and they are trying to grab the property by the strength of the false legal heir certificate and other pattas, to which the petitioner is entitled to. Subsequently, all the false documents were also cancelled. However, now the petitioner is facing a serious life threat from the 3rd to 5th respondents and sought the indulgence of this Court for directing the respondent police to take necessary action and provide police protection based on her representations dated 06.12.2025 and 08.12.2025.

4. The learned counsel for the 3rd to 5th respondents submitted that though the 3rd respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner's uncle Agustin, she had lived with him and had given 3/7

birth to a son named Charles, who passed away. They pointed out that the Patta proceedings with respect to the alleged documents are pending before the jurisdictional RDO. In view of the pendency of the said proceedings, the respondent police cannot meddle in a civil dispute and sought for a dismissal of the writ petition.

5. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the respondent police received the complaint on 16.12.2025. Since the petitioner is in Chennai, she did not cooperate with the enquiry.

6. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.

7. Had the threat to her life and limb been really true, she would have properly cooperated with the respondent police. Having been in Chennai, she had lodged a formal complaint before the respondent police and had sought for police protection. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the private respondents that all the documents impugned by her, which were subsequently cancelled by the competent authorities, are also subjected to challenge by the 4/7

3rd to 5th respondents before the appropriate authorities, and the same are pending.

8. In view of the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that the dispute between the petitioner as well as the private respondents is nothing but a civil dispute. Hence, the respective parties are directed to work out their remedy before the appropriate forums. It is made clear that they should not indulge in any physical or verbal altercation until the disposal of the civil case.

9. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. 25.06.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Sml To

1. The Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Natchiyarkoil Police Station, Natchiyarkovil, 5/7

Thanjavur District.

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

6/7

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml WP.Crl.(MD)No.2595 of 2025 25.06.2026 7/7