1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2458 of 2011 1. Kuppusamy 2. Jagan 3. Jeganathan 4. Santhanam 5. Saminathan 6. Muthu 7. Boominathan 8. Muniasamy 9. Thavaselvam 10. Rajendran 11. Pandi 12. Meenakshisundaram 13. Subramanian 14. Gurumoorthy 15. Santhanamari 16. Balaguru 17. Ravi 18. Meenakshisundaram 19. Sankar ... Petitioners Vs The State: Represented by Inspector of Police Kamuthi Police Station Ramnad District ... Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondent police to provide police protection to the life of the petitioners as per the complaint dated 02.02.2011. For Petitioners : Mr. T.A.Ebenezer For Respondent : Mr.L.Murugan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This Petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking for police protection to the life of the petitioners as per the complaint, dated 02.02.2011. 2. Heard Mr. T.A.Ebenezer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the petitioners are hair dressers doing service of hair removing for devotees, who are offering hair in Arulmigu Vazhivitta Ayyanar Thirukoil, Kamuthi, for a long time conventional. He would further submit in his argument that there was a dispute between two groups in administering the temple as traditional trustee and the suit is also pending between them. He would further submit in his argument that there was another dispute between the petitioners and the administrators of the temple in possessing the removed hairs from the devotees. He would also submit in his argument tha the festival will be celebrated during the month of Masi and therefore, there will be a chance for dispute between the two groups of administrators and the petitioners. He would further submit that there was a peace meeting conducted last year by the Tahsildar and in that meeting, an agreement was entered between them. He would also submit in his argument that now there was some dispute between them and the terms of the agreement will be violated and the administrators are also threatening the petitioners' life and limb and therefore, the petitioners have given a complaint, on 02.02.2011. He would further submit in his argument that if for any reason, the petitioners are not given with any protection by the respondent police, there may be a threat to the life and limb of the petitioners and therefore, he would request the Court that the petitioners may be given police protection for their 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 petitioners apprehension that the administrators of the temple are inimical towards the petitioners on the basis of possessing the removed hairs from the devotess, would be looked into and if there is an element of truth in the apprehension of the petitioners, the respondent police would give police protection to the life and limb of the petitioners 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 petitioners and the administrators of the temple in respect of possessing the removal of hairs from the devotees. The apprehension on the part of the petitioners would be that the administrators of the temple are still inimical towards the petitioners and they are not respecting the terms of the agreement entered between them and are threatening the petitioners life and limb. No doubt, the petitioners apprehension could be sustained. 7. The respondent police is also willing to provide protection to the life and limb of the petitioners. Therefore, this Court is convinced to direct the respondent to provide police protection to the life and limb of the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to direct the respondent to provide police protection to the life and limb of the petitioners. With the above direction, this Petition is ordered. vsg Sd/- Deputy Registrar[W] /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Inspector of Police Kamuthi Police Station Ramnad District 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai. +1 cc to Mr.T.A.Ebenezer, Advocate SR.No.10260. Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2458 of 2011 Dated:25.02.2011 3P/4C RPB 28.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/