Madras High Court
Kasthuri Ammal vs The Superintendent Of Police on 20 December, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10184 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10184 of 2021
Kasthuri Ammal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Manamathurai,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Thiruppuvanam Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Poovanthi Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
5.Muthurakku. ... Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct
the fourth respondent police to provide adequate police protection to the
petitioner and her family member's life and limb with property in Survey No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10184 of 2021
106/2 to the extent of 0.060.0 Hectares, situated at Thappaliyenthal Village,
Theli Group, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District, on the basis of the
petitioner's complaint, dated 16.07.2021 and the judgment and decree dated
01.07.2019 made in O.S.No.68 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District
Munsif Court, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Udhayakumar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl Side)for R.1 to R.4
Mr.K.Anna for R.5
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned
Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and
the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent.
2. The petitioner wants this Court to direct the fourth respondent to
provide her adequate police protection in respect of the petition mentioned
property. The petitioner had already given a complaint, dated 16.07.2021. Since
no favourable response was forthcoming, this Criminal Original Petition came
to be filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the fifth
respondent herein had sought to create a cloud on the petitioner's title by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10184 of 2021
getting a document registered in his favour. In this regard, the petitioner lodged
a criminal case and the same was registered in Crime No.13 of 2016 on the file
of the District Crime Branch, Sivagangai. The fifth respondent herein filed
Crl.O.P.No.21154 of 2016 for quashing the same. The said Criminal Original
Petition was dismissed on 16.03.2017. The petitioner herein filed W.P.(MD)No.
10749 of 2017 for directing the registering authority to cancel the fraudulent
sale deed executed in favour of the fifth respondent. A direction was given by
the writ Court on 09.06.2017. Pursuant to the said direction, the registering
authority held an enquiry and eventually, a document executed in favour of the
fifth respondent was also cancelled. The fifth respondent filed O.S.No.68 of
2016 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Manamadurai and the
petitioner herein is figuring as a first defandant. The said suit was also
dismissed on 01.07.2019. The case was investigated and final report was filed
and it has been taken on file as C.C.No.11 of 2017 on the file of Judicial
Magistrate Court No.II, Sivagangai, to quash the same the accused filed
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9652 of 2017. It was dismissed on 06.06.2018. Challenging
the same, the fifth respondent herein filed S.L.P.No.3831 of 2019 and the same
was dismissed on 08.07.2019.
4. In the face of these formidable circumstances, according to the
petitioner's counsel, the fourth respondent is obliged to act in aid of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10184 of 2021
petitioner. I am not pursuaded by the said submission. The dismissal of O.S.No.
68 of 2016 has not attained finality. The fifth respondent appears to have filed
first appeal along with the condone delay petition. Even if the first appeal
proceedings end against the fifth respondent, the police cannot step in directly.
Only if the petitioner has an enforceable decree or order from the jurisdictional
civil Court, the petitioner can expect the police to come to her aid. The counsel
for the fifth respondent states that he is in possession and enjoyment of the
property and the petitioner is trying to take the help of the police to evict the
fifth respondent from the petition mentioned property.
5. Such a course of action is clearly impermissible in law. The petitioner
should have an enforceable decree or order from the jurisdictional civil Court
before the respondents can be called upon to act to aid enforcement thereof.
6. With this liberty to the petitioner, this Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed.
20.12.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
mga
Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is
the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10184 of 2021
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Manamathurai,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Thiruppuvanam Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Poovanthi Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10184 of 2021
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
mga
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10184 of 2021
20.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
