1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:19.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4054 of 2011 K.Arumugaraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State represented by The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City. 2.The Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli City. ... Respondents PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli City to award adequate police protection so as to enable the petitioner to have his unhindered occupation in possession of the property situated at survey No.90/6, 90/7 and 90/8, Veera Ragavapuram Village, Tirunelveli District based upon his representation dated 18.12.2010. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For Respondents : Mr.S.Muthuvenkatesan Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R This petition is filed seeking for a direction, directing the second respondent to give police protection to invoke the petitioner to enjoy the entire property as per the order passed in I.A.No.470/2010 in O.S.No.179/2010, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed the above suit for injunction and interim injunction was granted and the same was made absolute on 09.08.2010. Even, thereafter the petitioner is not able to enjoy the property and the defendant in the suit, namely, one Arumugam and his henchman are giving trouble to the petitioner in enjoying the property. Therefore, he gave a petition to the second respondent on 18.12.2010, seeking police protection and so far no action has been taken. Hence, this application is filed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of this Court in D.Muthukrishnan Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Chengai-MGR District and others reported in 1993 L.W. (Crl.). 4. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side). 5. It is seen from the order passed in I.A.No.470/2010 in O.S.No.179/2010 that temporary injunction was granted, after hearing both parties. As per the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even in the case of interim injunction, the police is expected to give protection to the petitioner in enjoying the property and in this case, the temporary injunction has been granted after hearing both parties. 6. Hence, the second respondent is directed to give necessary police protection to the petitioner in enjoying the suit property as per the order passed in I.A.No.470/2010 in O.S.No.179/2010, dated 09.08.2010, if the defendant in the suit obtained an order from the appellate Court, the second respondent is directed to act according to the direction of the appellate Court. 7. With the above direction, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City. 2.The Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli City. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai. Ps rl/4c – 3.5.2011 Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4054 of 2011 19.04.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/