1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Criminal Original Petition (MD)No.1280 of 2011 S.Subramaniyan ... Petitioner vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thirukostiyur Police Station, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. 3.Irulayee 4.Meenakshi Sundaram 5.Mangalanathan 6.Karumbunathan 7.Manickammal 8.Valatharasu 9.Vedagirinathan 10.Panbunathan 11.Ramanathan 12.Lakshmanan ... Respondents PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to give police protection to conduct the Temple Festival Ceremony in a peaceful manner on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 27.01.2011 in accordance with law. For Petitioner :Mr.M.Subash Babu For Respondents :Mr.L.Murugan Govt. Advocate, Crl. Side for RR1 and 2 Mr.V.Kannan for RR3 to 12 O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction against the 1st and 2nd respondents to give police protection to conduct the Temple Festival Ceremony in a peaceful manner on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 27.01.2011 in accordance with law. 2.Heard Mr.M.Subash Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent RR1 and 2/State and Mr.V.Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 12. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 12 are Pangalis and are having family temple in S.No.271/8 of Pattamangalam Village of Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District and festivals are being celebrated by the said Pangalis jointly and every Pangali is entitled to participate in the said festivals. He would further submit that the respondents 3 to 12 were preventing the petitioner from participating the temple festival and therefore, the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.66 of 2008 for declaration and permanent injunction and for other reliefs before the Court of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirupathur and an order of interim injunction was passed against the respondents 3 to 12 in I.A.No.359 of 2008 and the said order is still in force. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioners may be permitted to participate in the conduct of the family temple festival ceremony in the peaceful manner on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 27.01.2011 with police protection to be given by the respondents 1 and 2. 4.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in his argument that the petitioner had obtained an order of temporary injunction against the respondents 3 to 12 from preventing him from celebrating the family deity located in S.No.271/8 of the said Village and if suitable directions are given, the police will give police protection. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 12 would submit in his argument that an injunction order has been granted by the competent Civil Court in I.A.No.359 of 2008 against the respondents 3 to 12 and in favour of the petitioner for participating the family festival in a peaceful manner and the petitioner cannot enter into the premises of a Kalyana mandapam put up by the respondents 3 to 12. He would further submit in his argument that the temple is in a different place and the petitioner can very well participate on the date of festival viz., 06.02.2011 and worship the family deity and temple, but, he cannot inter into the Kalyanamandapam, which was constructed by the respondents 3 to 12. Therefore, suitable directions may be issued that the petitioner cannot enter into the Kalyanamandapam, but entitled for celebrating the festival. 6.I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. 7.The undisputed facts are that the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 12 are Pangalis and they are having a family deity and a temple located in S.No.271/8 of Pattamangalam vilalge, Thirupathur Taluk and Sivagangai District, in which the petitioner as well as the respondents 3 to 12 as Pangalis are entitled to celebrate the festival on various dates in a year. Accordingly, the present ensuing festival is scheduled to have been conducted on 06.02.2011. The request of the petitioner is that in the wake of the dispute, had in between the parties, which culminated in filing the suit and the petitioner has obtained an order of injunction and therefore, he may be provided with the police protection for celebrating the festival as per the injunction order passed by the civil Court. However, the respondents 3 to 12 would submit that there is a Kalyanamandapam put up by the respondents 3 to 12 and in the said Kalyanamandapam, the petitioner has no right to enter into the property https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 and therefore, the petitioner may be granted police protection except from entering into the Kalyanamandapam. 8.Considering this aspect, it has been pointed out that the Kalyanamandapam was constructed by the respondents 3 to 12 adjacent to the temple situated in S.No.271/8. If really the said Kalyanamandapam is built in S.No.271/8, then naturally every Pangalis including the petitioner are entitled to use the said Kalyanamandapam for the purpose of worshiping the family deity and for other incidental ceremonies. If the Kalyanamandapam said to have been constructed by the respondents 3 to 12 is not constructed in the temple land comprised in S.No.271/8, then the petitioner cannot enter into the said Kalyanamandapam since, it would be belonging to the respondents 3 to 12 alone. No document regarding the location of the said Kalyanamandapam is produced before this Court for deciding the said aspect. Therefore, it is left to the discretion of a civil Court to adjudicate the same. Therefore, this Court could see that there is no impediment for giving police protection to the petitioner for worshiping the family deity and celebrating the family temple festival to be held on 06.02.2011 by approaching the temple and other premises except the Kalyanamandapam till the right, to use the said Kalyanamandapam is decided by a competent Civil Court. Therefore, this Court is inclined to pass an order of police protection to the petitioner as sought for by him in the premises of the temple except the Kalyanamandapam said to have been constructed by the respondents 3 to 12, till it is settled by any competent civil Court. 9.With the above direction, this petition is ordered to that extent. arul Sd/- Assistant Registrar[Crl side] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar TO 1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thirukostiyur Police Station, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 cc to Mr.M.Subash Balu, Advocate SR.No.4459. +1 cc to Mr.V.Kannan, Advocate SR.No.4488. Crl.OP.(MD) No.1280 of 2011 Dated:04.02.2011 3P/6C RPB 04.02.2011[I.T.] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/