Madras High Court
P.Srinivasa Reddy vs The Superintendent Of Police on 6 January, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.21072 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 06.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.No.21072 of 2020
P.Srinivasa Reddy .. Petitioner
Vs.
State Rep. by
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri / District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Mathigiri Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
4. Pappanna .. Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to issue direction to the respondents 1,2 and 3 herein to provide
police protection for the life and safety of the petitioner and his family members
and servants for putting up fencing and other miscellaneous works in the
petitioners property situated at Onnalavadi Village, consisting of agricultural land
comprised in Survey Nos.805/2, 806/1 having an extent of 2 acres 16 cents
situated at Onnalavadi Village, near ITI Technical Institute, Gaythiri Petrol Bunk
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.21072 of 2020
within the Madirigi Police Station, Krishnagiri District.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Baaskaran
For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 to R3
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking for police protection for the purpose of
fencing the property of the petitioner based on the FIR registered by the
respondent police in Crime No.622 of 2020.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent was claiming right over
the subject property and had also filed in suit in O.S.No.483 of 1986 before the
District Munsif Court, Hosur against the vendor of the petitioner and the said suit
came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 31.12.2001. An appeal came
to be filed against the said decree in A.S.No.15 of 2012 before the Sub Court,
Krishnagiri and the same was also dismissed by judgment and decree dated
06.08.2002. Thereafter, the subject property was sold in favour of the petitioner by
registered sale deed dated 28.05.2008. The patta also was transferred to the name
of the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.21072 of 2020
3.The petitioner wanted to secure his property by fencing the same.
However, the 4th respondent along with some other third parties prevented the
same and had caused threat to the petitioner and his family members. They also
went to the extent of dis-lodging the fencing that was put up. This resulted in a
complaint given by the petitioner to the respondent police and the 3rd respondent
also registered an FIR in Crime No.622 of 2020 for the offences under Sections
447, 427 and 506(i) of IPC. According to the petitioner, the threat perception
continues and the petitioner did not get any protection from the police. Hence, the
present petition has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate directions.
4.Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondents 1 to 3.
5.A careful perusal of the records furnished before this Court and after
careful consideration of the submissions made on either side, it is seen that the 4th
respondent had already attempted to establish his right over the subject property
before the competent civil court and the same came to be rejected. The petitioner
has purchased the property and the revenue records also stands in his name. The
petitioner wants to secure his property by fencing the same and when the 4th
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.21072 of 2020
respondent along with others indulged in illegal acts, a complaint came to be filed
and an FIR has also been registered against the 4th respondent and two others. In
spite of the same, it is alleged by the petitioner that the threat continues and 4th
respondent is not allowing the petitioner to fence his property.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court,
the judgment passed in the case of Radhika Sri Hari & another vs. The
Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore & another reported in
2014 2 LW 927, wherein this Court was dealing with similar set of facts and after
referring to the relevant Government Order, had held that in such cases the police
protection has to be given in order to enable the owner of the property to secure
his property.
7.In the considered view of this Court, the 3rd respondent will have to take
necessary action in order to safeguard the rights of the petitioner. Already an FIR
is pending against the 4th respondent and two others. The 3rd respondent shall call
the 4th respondent for an enquiry and shall inform the 4 th respondent not to indulge
in any illegal activities or cause any law and order problem and if at all he has any
right, to agitate before the competent forum. The 3rd respondent is entitled to act
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.21072 of 2020
against the 4th respondent in the course of investigation since an FIR has already
been registered. If in spite of warning the 4th respondent, any attempt is made to
prevent the petitioner from fencing the property, immediate action shall be taken
in accordance with law and necessary police protection shall also be given to the
petitioner. The petitioner is directed to make a fresh complaint to the 3rd
respondent along with the copy of this order.
8.This criminal original petition is disposed of with the above directions.
06.01.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
ssr
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri / District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Mathigiri Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.21072 of 2020
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J
ssr
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.21072 of 2020
06.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
