1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1923 of 2011 S.Suganthi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar 2.The State Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Virudhunagar ... Respondents PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the first respondent to give necessary direction to the second respondent to take action and to give police protection to the petitioner based on her complaint dated 04.02.2011. For Petitioner : Mr. A.Haja Mohideen For Respondents : Mr. L.Murugan, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking police protection on her complaint dated 04.02.2011 and also to take necessary action as per the said complaint and to pass necessary orders. 2. Heard Mr. A.Haja Mohideen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for State. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner was married to one Ramesh Kumar at Virudhunagar in accordance with law and after their marriage, the petitioner and her husband resided at Thiruppur and Coimbatore and on the failure of business run by the husband, both of them returned to native village and started poultry and the said business was also ruined and he worked as a Manager at LIC Parivar Company and now he is receiving huge salary. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioner was tortoured and raised unnecessary doubts while she was working, since the torture was not tolerable, she was driven out from the matrimonial home by her husband and she gave a complaint and in the Mediation, she returned to matrimonial home. However, he had given torture to the petitioner in a different way, both physically and mentaly and thereafter, she had filed a Petition for divorce in I.D.O.P.No. 5 of 2010, on the file of the District Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur and with the intervention of the petitioner's mother, the petitioner was forced to live with the petitioner's husband and her husband was played hook-crook method to withdraw three lawful action against him and thereafter, counselling was done through Doctor, namely, Ramasubramaniayam. However, the petitioner's husband agravated and abused the petitioner and threatens the petitioner that he would kill her by using cooking gas. He would further submit that the petitioner had lost all her hopes that she would get justice in the hands of the respondents on her giving the complaint to the second respondent, on 04.02.2011. Therefore, she may be given atleast police protection on the basis of the said complaint from the harassment of her https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 husband, namely, Ramesh Kumar. He would therefore ask for the relief of police protection alone, despite she has asked for to take necessary action on the complaint. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that the dispute in between the petitioner and her husand is still unsettled and the complaint is pending before the second respondent police. He would further submit in his argument that the respondents are ready to give police protection to the petitioner who being a woman if she restricts herself for her life and limb. 5. I have given anxous consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. 6. This Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction against the second respondent to take action on her complaint, on 04.02.2011, given against her husband and also to give police protection for her life and limb. The dispute in between the petitioner and her husband was pending for a longer duration and on earlier three occassions, the disputes were mediated and was advised to live together. However, she had given a complaint, on 04.02.2011, to take action against her husband and the counselling was done on the basis of the complaint and they attended Doctor, Ramasubramaniayam, for such counselling, but that ended in failure. Thereafter, the petitioner apprehends that her husband would take her away by threatening her to kill her. In the said circumstances, the petitioner's counsel restricted the claim for protection only to life and limb. 7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that the police is ready to give protection to the life and limb of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no impediment for this Court to order police protection to the petitioner for her life and limb, without going into the merits of the allegations and denials. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the Petition filed by the petitioner for seeking police protection is ordered to that extent of life and limb of the petitioner. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( WRITS ) /TRUE COPY/ ASST REGISTRAR vsg To 1.The Superintendent of police, \irudhunagar District, Virudhunagar 2.The Sub Inspector of police, All Women Police Station, Virudhunagar 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai 1CC TO MR. A. HAJA MOHIDEEN, ADVOCATE, SR: 8817: DM:2011::MARCH:04::: Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1923 of 2011 15.02.2011 2P:5C:; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/