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.1886 of 2011 Rajendran ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Inspector of Police S.P. Pattinam Police Station Thondi Ramanathapuram District 2. The Superintendent of Police Ramanathapuram District ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the first respondent to give adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner and his family on his representation dated 29.01.2011. *** For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arun Prasad For Respondents : Mr.L.Murugan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to direct the first respondent to give adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner and his family on his representation dated 29.01.2011. 2. Heard Mr.A.Arun Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.L.Murugan, 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 owned a property in S.No. 226/8B1. He would further submit in his argument that during the year 2003, one Puchi Servai has intereferred in the petitioner's peaceful possession and when the petitioner retained the same, the said Puchi Servai filed a suit in O.S.No.38 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvadanai and the said suit filed by the Puchi Servai was dismissed by the District Munsif Court, Thiruvadanai. He would further submit in his argument that the appeal preferred by the said Puchi Servai in A.S.No. 38 of 2005 was also dismissed by the Appellate Court and against the said judgment, the said Puchi Servai has preferred second appeal in S.A.No. 105 of 2007, in which, status quo order has been passed. However, the petitioner was threatened by the said Puchi servai and his family members that he is going to occupy the said property despite the Civil Court decree against them and they are also threatening the petitioner's life and limb and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 therefore, the petitioner has given a complaint on 29.01.2011 against the said Puchi Servai. 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 the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members and therefore, he would request the Court that the petitioner may be given police protection for his life and limb. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that the respondent police is always duty bound to protect every citizen's life and limb and the petitioner's apprehension that the said Puchi Servai is inimical towards the petitioner on the basis of the civil dispute ended in favour of the petitioner, would be looked into 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 and his family members 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 petitioners in the form of typed set of papers would go to show that there was a dispute in between the petitioner and the said Puchi Servai in respect of the properties and a suit was filed by the Puchi Servai against the petitioner in O.S.No. 38 of 2003 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Thiruvadanai and the same was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the said Puchi Servai in A.S.No. 38 of 2005 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram, was also ended in favour of the petitioner as the appeal was dismissed. Against the said judgment, the said Puchi Servai has preferred second appeal in S.A.No. 105 of 2007, in which, 'status quo' order has been passed. These documents would go to show that the petitioner is found to be the true owner of the property. The apprehension on the part of the petitioner would be that the said Puchi Servai is still inimical towards the petitioner and he is not respecting the Judgement and decree passed by the Civil Courts and is threatening to invade the property. 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 and his family members. If for any reason, the property is invaded by the said Puchi Servai, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court by initiating appropriate proceedings of contempt and other relief. Therefore, this Court is convinced to direct the respondent to provide police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members. 8. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to direct the respondent to provide police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members. With the above direction, this Petition is ordered. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(LA) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1. The Inspector of Police S.P. Pattinam Police Station Thondi Ramanathapuram District 2. The Superintendent of Police Ramanathapuram District 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1886 of 2011 15.02.2011 vsg PAM 04.03.2011/4C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/