Madras High Court
Mageswari vs The Superintendent Of Police on 7 July, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.11635 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P No.11635 of 2021
Mageswari
W/o.Subramaniam ... Petitioner
Vs.
State by
1.The Superintendent of Police
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur
2.The Inspector of Police
Kangayam Police Station
Kangayam, Tiruppur District ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure to issue directions, directing the respondents to give
adequate police protection for one day for erecting the fencing in the
Petitioner's Patta Land situated in S.Nos.598/2 and 601/1B, Paranchervazhi
Village, Kangayam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam
For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/4
Crl.O.P.No.11635 of 2021
ORDER
(This case has been heard through video conference)
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking for a
direction, directing the respondents to give adequate police protection to the
petitioner for only one day to erect fencing in the Petitioner's Patta Land
situated in S.Nos.598/2 and 601/1B, Paranchervazhi Village, Kangayam Taluk,
Tiruppur District.
2.The petitioner had lodged a complaint before the 1st respondent police
on 11.08.2020 seeking adequate police protection for erecting fencing in the
Petitioner's Patta Land situated in Survey Nos.598/2 and 601/1B,
Paranchervazhi Village, Kangayam Taluk, Tiruppur District. The 1st and 2nd
respondent on receipt of the same, have not considered the same. Therefore,
the petitioner was unable to put up a fencing to protect her crops from the
cattle. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a suit in O.S.No.96 of 2020, which
was pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kangayam. Thereafter,
the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a petition in
Crl.O.P.No.14180 of 2020 seeking for a police protection to erect fencing. This
Court vide order dated 11.09.2020 had rejected the petition on the ground that
civil dispute was pending before the Civil Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.11635 of 2021
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that O.S.No.96 of
2020 had been decreed in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 10.03.2021
by the District Munsif Court, Kangayam, whereby the petitioner was granted
permanent injunction, restraining the counter parties from disturbing the
petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment and against that order in
O.S.No.96 of 2020, there was no appeal. Further, the learned counsel placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court 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.
4.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed as prayed
for.
07.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
kas
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.11635 of 2021
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
kas
To.
1.The Superintendent of Police
Tiruppur District
Tiruppur
2.The Inspector of Police
Kangayam Police Station
Kangayam
Tiruppur District
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Chennai 600 104
Crl.O.P No.11635 of 2021
07.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
