1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2462 of 2011 K.Manoharan ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of Police Dindigul District 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Oddanchattram Sub-Division Dindigul District 3. The Inspectoro f Police Oddanchattram Police Station Dindigul District ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondents to give proper police protection to the petitioner life and lives of the petitioner's family members on the based of the petitioner complaint dated 20.02.2011. For Petitioner : Mr. R.Udhayakumar For Respondents : Mr.L.Murugan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER This Petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to direct the respondents to give proper police protection to the petitioner life and limb of the petitioner and family members on the petitioner's complaint dated 20.02.2011. 2. Heard Mr. R.Udhayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit in his argument that one Subramaniam and one Jeyarambabu executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner, dated 02.03.1992 and the same was registered by the Sub-registrar Office, Oddanchattram in Document No. 224 of 1992 and thereafter, the petitioner is enjoying the property in S.No. 39/4 to the extent of 1.51 cents. He would further submit in his argument that one Kalavathy executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner, dated 16.03.1994 and the same was registered by the Sub-registrar Office, Oddanchattram in Document No. 431 of 1994 and thereafter, the petitioner enjoying the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 property in S.No. 37/2 to the extent of 0.05 cents. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioner has been now enjoying both the properties and the petitioner was threatened by one Palanisamy @ Thangaraju /accused and the said accused has created the forged documents and filed a civil suit against the petitioner in O.S.No. 216 of 2008. He would further submit that the accused has demanded money from the petitioner and on 20.02.2011, the accused and unnamed 10 persons trespassed the petitioner's property and threatened the petitioner's life and limb. Hence, the petitioner preferred a complaint before the third respondent, but no action has been taken against the accused persons. He would further submit in his argument that again, the petitioner has preferred another complaint before the respondents, on 21.02.2011, but no action has been taken and if for any reason, the petitioner has not been given with any protection by the respondent police, there may be a threat to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members and therefore, he would request the Court that the petitioner may be given police protection for their life and limb. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that the respondent police is always duty bound to protect every citizen's life and limb and the petitioner's apprehension that the said accused persons are inimical towards the petitioner on the basis of the civil dispute, would be looked into and if there is an element of truth in the apprehension of the petitioner, the respondent police would give police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members also. Therefore, he would request the Court to pass suitable orders. 5. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. 6. The documents produced by the petitioners in the form of typed set of papers would go to show that there was a dispute in between the petitioners and the said accused persons in respect of the properties and a suit was filed by the accused persons against the petitioner. The apprehension on the part of the petitioner would be that the said accused persons are still inimical towards the petitioner. No doubt, the petitioner's apprehension could be sustained. 7. The respondent police is also willing to provide protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members. If for any reason, the property is invaded by the said accused persons, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court by initiating appropriate proceedings and other relief. Therefore, this Court is convinced to direct the respondent to provide police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and the members of his family alone. 8. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to direct the respondent to provide police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members. With the above direction, this Petition is ordered to that extent. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1. The Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of Police Dindigul District 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Oddanchattram Sub-Division Dindigul District 3. The Inspectoro f Police Oddanchattram Police Station Dindigul District 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2462 of 2011 25.02.2011 vsg PA/08.03.2011/3P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/