IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.03.2008 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Crl.O.P.No.8901 of 2006 Muthu Gounder .. Petitioner Vs. 1)The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police Chinnasalem, Kallakurichi Taluk Villupuram District 2)The Superintendent of Police Villupuram District Villupuram 3)Anbazhagan 4)Muthayee Ammal 5)Chandra .. Respondents The Criminal Original Petition is filed to direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to give me police protection thereby preventing the respondents 3 to 5 from interfering with my cart track subject matter in second Appeal No.1506/94 arising out of O.S.No.877/82 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi viz: Kallakurichi Taluk, Namasivayapuram Village, Dry.S.No.109/1&2, 108/2, within the Sy.No. on west, cart track running south to north, measuring East West 20 links breadth south to North, length 1307 links, cart track shown as A, B, C in the plant plan. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Krishnaswamy for M/s.Beula Rajakumari For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniapparaj (for R1 & R2) Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Mr.G.Selvatharasu (for R3 & R4) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 2. The present petition filed invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is for a direction to the Respondents 1 and 2 herein to give police protection to the petitioner for the unhindered enjoyment of a right of passage in accordance with a decree passed by a Civil Court, namely the court of Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi in O.S.No.877/82 which came to be confirmed in an appeal before the first Appellate Court and in a second appeal before the second Appellate Court, namely the High Court. 3. Admittedly the said decree was passed holding the petitioner herein entitled to a right to use the cart track over the land belonging to the Respondents 3 to 5 by way of easement of necessity. Contending that even after the confirmation of the decree by the first Appellate court as well as the second Appellate Court, the Respondents 3 to 5 are trying to obliterate the cart track and prevent the petitioner from using the cart track, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition for a direction to the police to give police protection. It seems the petitioner herein preferred a complaint on the file of Chinna Salem Police Station, based on which a case was registered after preliminary enquiry in Crime No.396/2006 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294B, 426 and 506 part 2 of IPC. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) representing the State, drew the attention of the court to the contents of the said complaint and argued that no where in the said complaint, the petitioner had prayed for providing any police protection for the enjoyment of the cart track right and that the police have taken all steps to register a case, investigate the same and prosecute the persons for the offences if any committed by them. 5. Under such circumstances bye-passing the Government, the Petitioner has approached this Court without first even making a representation to the authorities concerned for providing police protection if necessary. Furthermore, in respect of property disputes, it will be quite impossible for the State to provide police protection to all the persons in whose favour decrees have been granted by the competent Civil Court. The executive must take stock of the situation to decide whether deploying police force to give protection to such a decree holder is absolutely necessary and if so to what extent and for the period during which such protection should be given. 6. Under the guise of exercising the inherent powers of the High Court, this court cannot usurp the powers of the executive in making a decision as to whether police protection has to be given or not. As the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner herein is gifted with a Civil Court decree for an injunction against the Respondents 3 to 5, he can very well approach the Civil Court which granted the decree, for enforcement of the decree by seeking punishment of the judgement debtors for the violation of such decree. In the course of such execution proceedings he can also seek police protection. When such alternative remedies are available to the petitioner, the present petition for invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code cannot be allowed. 7. For the reasons stated supra, this Court comes to the conclusion that this petition deserves to be dismissed. However, this court observes that the dismissal of this petition will not be a bar for the petitioner to submit a representation to the concerned authorities for similar relief or for levying execution of the decree obtained in the Civil Court. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar asr To 1. The Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi 2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Chinnasalem, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, Villupuram. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 1 cc To M/s.Beula Rajakumari, Advocate, SR.15760. 1 cc To Mr.G.S.Selvatharasu, Advocate, SR.15904. Crl.O.P.No.8901 of 2006 NM(CO) RVL 02.04.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/