1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15245 of 2011 M.Saranya ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Superintendent of Police Tiruchirappalli District 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Manapparai Tiruchirappalli District 3. The Inspector of Police Manapparai Police Station Manapparai Taluk Trichy District ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the third respondents to give adequate police protection to the petitioner's life. For Petitioner : Mr. S.Gopalamanikandan For Respondents : Mrs.S.Prabha Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for police protection for her life and limb. 2. Heard Mr. S.Gopalamanikandan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner and one Senthilkumar loved each other and they got married at Arulmigu Kesava Perumal Temple at Naduvallur Village, Gangavalli Taluk, Salem District on 28.10.2011 and immediately registered the marriage under the Tamil Nadu Registration Act 2009 before the Marriage Registrar Office, Gangavalli. He would further submit in his argument that on 13.11.2011, the petitioner's father and mother along with ten other unknown persons came to the house of the petitioner and threatened the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner gave a complaint before the third respondent police, on 14.11.2011 and the same was received, but no action has been taken. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the first and second respondents, in that also, there was no response. Hence, the petitioner has come up with the present Petition. He would further submit in his argument that if for any reason, the petitioner is not given with any protection by the respondent police, there may be a threat to her life and limb and therefore, he would request the Court that the petitioner may be given police protection for her life and limb. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in her argument that the respondent police is always duty bound to protect every citizen's life and limb and the petitioner's apprehension that the parents of the petitioner are inimical towards the petitioner on the basis of the family dispute 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 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 petitioner in the form of typed set of papers would go to show that there was a dispute in between the petitioner and her parents in respect of family dispute. These documents would go to show that the petitioner and one Senthilkumar has got married and registered the marriage under the Tamil Nadu Registration Act 2009 before the Marriage Registrar Office, Gangavalli. The apprehension on the part of the petitioner would be that her parents are still inimical towards the petitioner and are threatening to the life and limb of the petitioner and her husband 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. Therefore, this Court is convinced to direct the respondent to provide police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to appear before the third respondent and give fresh representation and on receipt of the same, the third respondent is directed to provide police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner. 9. With the above direction, this Petition is ordered. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T & P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirappalli District 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manapparai, Tiruchirappalli District 3. The Inspector of Police, Manapparai Police Station Manapparai Taluk,Trichy District 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai +1 CC to M/s S.Gopalamanikandan, Advocate, SR.No.41288 vsg Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15245 of 2011 23.11.2011 TR : 01.12.2011 : 2p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/