1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:21.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 7114 of 2011 K.Ganapathy :Petitioner -Vs- 1.State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District At Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadayalumoodu, Kanyakumari District. :Respondents PRAYER:This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondents to provide to the petitioner police protection for his person and properties of 16 ares of land with his residential house, bearing No.6/57A of Kadayal Town Panchayat and trees, and 32 ares of land with trees, in Valiyayela, Kaliyal Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District based on representation dated 02.04.2011. For Petitioner : Mr. K.N.Thampi For Respondents : Mr.P.Kannithevan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER This Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to provide police protection to the petitioner, his person and properties of 16 ares of land with his residential house, bearing No.6/57A of Kadayal Town Panchayat and trees, and 32 ares of land with trees, in Valiyayela, Kaliyal Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District based on representation dated 02.04.2011. 2.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner married one Saroja and that marriage was also dissolved and thereafter in connivance with his daughter, son, father-in-law of his son, his former wife interfered with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties and therefore, he filed a suit in O.S.No. 195 of 2010 against his former wife Saroja and his daughter and that suit was decreed on 15.11.2010 and even thereafter, they are threatening the petitioner and prevented the petitioner from enjoying the property. Therefore, the petitioner has sent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Petitions on 05.01.2011 and also on 02.04.2011 and Lawyer's notice was also served on his former wife and two others and as the respondents were not acting on the complaint given by the petitioner as against his former wife, daughter, son and father- in-law of his son, they were emboldened and disturbed the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and are threatening the petitioner and therefore, he must be given police protection. 3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the dispute is civil in nature among the father, daughter and his wife. 4.Considering the nature of averments in the petition and also the decree passed in O.S.No. 195 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai and the fact that the petitioner divorced his wife Saroja, in my opinion that the respondents ought to have taken action on the complaint given by the petitioner, on 05.01.2011 and 02.04.2011. 5.Hence, the respondents are directed to conduct enquiry and to take appropriate action against those persons mentioned in the complaint, if any cognizable offence is made out, on the complaint given by the petitioner, dated 02.04.2011. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) / TRUE COPY / Assistant Registrar To: 1. The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District At Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadayalumoodu, Kanyakumari District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai. vsg RP/29.06.2011/2P/4C. Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 7114 of 2011 21.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/