1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2210 of 2011 1. C.Sundaraj 2. K.Gurusamy 3. Kamatchi 4. K.Muthusamy 5. Raja 6. C.Thangavel ... Petitioners Vs. 1. The Superintendent of Police Theni, Theni District 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Periyakulam, Theni District 3. The Inspector of Police Vadagarai Police Station Periyakulam, Theni District 4. N.Uthayakumar ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to give police protection to the petitioners on the representation dated 18.02.2011 and all worshipers to celebrate Mahasivarathiri festival and worship Sri Pattalamman and other deities in Sri Pattalamman Temple, Vadakarai, Periyakulam from 02.03.2011 to 10.03.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.L.Murugan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For 4th Respondent : Mr.C.Bethanasamy O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to give police protection to the petitioners on the representation dated 18.02.2011 and all worshipers to celebrate Mahasivarathiri festival and worship Sri Pattalamman and other deities in Sri Pattalamman Temple, Vadakarai, Periyakulam from 02.03.2011 to 10.03.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. Heard Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and also Mr. C.Bethanasamy, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the petitioners are said to have belonged to Thavalaiyar Group of 24 Manai Telugu Chettiars and totally 55 family groups worship Shri. Pattalamman as their family deity and the said temple was very old and ancient. The petitioners and other groups regularly worship in the temple. He would further submit in his argument that on an earlier occasion, police protection was granted for the celebration of Mahasivarathiri, in Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 3034 of 2008 and this Court passed an order dated 05.03.2008 issuing a direction to the police authorities to provide police protection to the fourth respondent herein and also to all the villagers to worship in the temple for their celebration of festival. He would also submit in his argument that there is a suit filed by the fourth respondent in O.S.No. 17 of 2007 before the learned District Munsif Court, Periyakulam and the same was decreed in favour of the fourth respondent and against which, the petitioners 1, 2 and 6 filed an appeal in A.S.No. 16 of 2010 before the Sub-Court, Periyakulam and it is pending. He would further submit in his argument that in the said appeal, the petitioners filed a Petition for stay in I.A.No. 26 of 2010 and the stay of the operation of the Judgment and Decree was ordered, which is also pending. In the said circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would request the Court that the petitioners and other villagers including the fourth respondent may be granted police protection for the due celebration of Mahasivarathiri this year also. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit in his argument that this Court had already passed an order granting police protection in the year 2008 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 3034 of 2008 and accordingly, the police protection was granted to every villager, who worship the deity in the temple and if this Court orders this year also, the police will execute the same and give protection to every villager. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would submit in his argument that the suit has been ended in his favour and the Civil Court has accepted the contention of his claiming the trusteeship of the said temple and the matter has been now pending before the Appellate Court and it is pending adjudication and the protection given to the petitioners may not confer any property right, if protection is granted by this Court. He would further submit in his argument that suitable orders may be passed in this year also and he is ready to celebrate the festival and let all the villagers may participate in the said festival including the petitioners subject to the result of the Appeal. 6. Considering the submissions made on all the sides, this Court could see that no person can be prevented from worshipping the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 almighty of God in the form of deity. However, the civil dispute is pending before the Sub-Court, Periyakulam, in A.S.No. 16 of 2010 and stay has also been obtained. This Court had already granted police protection to every villager as well as the fourth respondent, on 05.03.2008 to conduct the similar festival which had been conducted in the year 2008. 7. Therefore, this Court is constrained to direct the respondent police to give police protection to the petitioners as well as the fourth respondent including all the villagers to worship the deity in respect of conduct of the temple festival to be held from 02.03.2011 to 10.03.2011. 8. It is further made clear that the grant of police protection at the instance of the petitioners is not giving any direction in respect of the property rights. With the above said direction, this Petition is ordered. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Superintendent of Police Theni, Theni District 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Periyakulam, Theni District 3. The Inspector of Police Vadagarai Police Station Periyakulam, Theni District 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai +1 CC to Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, Advocate (SR.No.10593) +1 CC to Mr.C.Bethanasamy, Advocate (SR.No.10599) Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2210 of 2011 01.03.2011 vsg NSV/1.3.11/3P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/