Madras High Court
A.Arumugam vs State House Officer on 28 July, 2021
CRL.O.P.No.11311 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.11311 of 2021
A.Arumugam ... Petitioner
Versus
1.State House Officer,
Thavalakuppam Police Station,
Puducherry – 605 007.
2.Rajaram
3.R.Osaimani ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, directing the Station House Officer, Inspector of
Police, Thavalakuppam Police Station, Puducherry – 605 007 to provide
adequate police protection based on the petitioner's representation dated
07.05.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Sreenivasan
For R1 : Mr.V.Balamurugane,
Additional Public Prosecutor, Puducherry
*****
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the 1st
respondent Police to provide Police protection by considering the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.11311 of 2021
representation of the petitioner dated 07.05.2021.
2.The petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 75 years and he is in
absolute possession and enjoyment of the property measuring to the
extent of 2304 sq.ft comprised in R.S.No.93/85 and 93/87 of
Abishegapakkam Revenue Village, Abishegapurampet, Arainkuppam
Commune, Puducherry for the past 68 years. Earlier, the petitioner has
constructed a house with compound wall in all four sides in the said
property and leaving a vacant space of 900 sq.ft. Inside the compound
wall, he has grown plantain trees, guava trees, coconut trees, neem trees
etc. The petitioner has been regularly paying property tax and all other
statutory payments. This being the case, on 14.02.2013, at about 09.00
a.m., the respondents 2 and 3 entered into the said property and claimed
that the property belongs to their father Natesan and threatened him that
the petitioner to vacate and handed over the property to them. Hence, the
petitioner lodged a complaint to the respondent Police and the same was
registered in Crime No.41 of 2014 on 06.06.2014, for offence under
Sections 448, 506(i) r/w 34 of IPC against the respondents 2 and 3 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.11311 of 2021
two others. The respondent Police have not taken any steps to conduct
investigation. In the meanwhile, the respondents 2 and 3 had filed a suit
in O.S.No.471 of 2014 before the learned Principal District Munsif,
Puducherry seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from
interfering with their peaceful possession in the suit property. In the suit,
the respondents 2 and 3 obtained exparte ad-interim injunction against
the petitioner, by order, dated 25.02.2014 in I.A.No.475 of 2014 in
O.S.No.471 of 2014. Taking advantage of the exparte order, the
respondents 2 and 3 demolished the compound wall in the suit property.
Later, the petitioner filed counter in the Interlocutory Application and ad-
interim injunction granted earlier was vacated. Challenging the same, the
respondents 2 and 3 filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.3 of 2016 before the
Additional Subordinate Judge, Puducherry and the appeal was dismissed
on 05.07.2017. Having achieved their plain in demolishing a part of the
compound wall, the respondents 2 and 3 withdrawn the suit in
O.S.No.471 of 2014 and the same was dismissed as not pressed vide
judgment and decree dated 08.01.2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.11311 of 2021
3.The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been in
possession and enjoyment of the suit property for the past 70 years and
he was living along with his aged wife. The intruders namely the
respondents 2 and 3 and two others, who are the accused in Crime No.41
of 2014, had threatened the petitioner and also approached the civil
Court, obtained exparte interim injunction order and taking advantage
over the same, the respondents 2 and 3 demolished the compound wall
and finally, withdrawn the suit. Had the plaintiff/respondents 2 and 3
therein had a case in favour of them, they would not have withdrew the
suit, which exposes the illegal act of respondents 2 and 3. Now, the
petitioner is seeking to restore the compound wall as before.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Puducherry appearing
for the 1st respondent Police filed counter and submitted that the
respondents 2 and 3 are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.471 of 2014
and they filed an Application in I.A.No.475 of 2014 in O.S.No.471 of
2014 and obtained an exparte ad-interim injunction order and later, the
interim injunction order was vacated on the counter filed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.11311 of 2021
petitioner. While vacating interim injunction order, the learned Principal
District Munsif, Puducherry had observed that the petitioner is an
encroacher. While being so, the petitioner cannot claim his right over the
suit property and construct the compound wall. He further submitted that
the withdrawal of the suit in O.S.No.471 of 2014 by the respondents 2
and 3 would not absolve the petitioner from the encroachment. Now, the
respondents 2 and 3 had filed the suit in O.S.No.82 of 2020 before the
learned Principal District Munsif, Puducherry. In view of the civil cases
are pending between the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3, the
petitioner cannot seek any protection.
5.In order to substantiate his submissions, the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, Puducherry relied on the order of this Court in case of
“G.Meena Versus The Commissioner of Police (Sub-Urban),
St.Thomas Mount, Chennai and others in Crl.O.P.No.20980 of 2008,
dated 08.12.2008,” wherein this Court had relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “P.R.Muralidharan and Others
Versus Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar reported in (2006) 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.11311 of 2021
SCC 501,” wherein it had held that while exercising the writ jurisdiction
as it also involved determination of disputed questions of fact cannot be
gone into.
6.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record.
7.The respondents 2 and 3 are the accused/A1 and A2 in Crime
No.41 of 2014 pending on the file of the respondent Police. The FIR was
registered, since the respondents 2 and 3 demolished the compound wall
of the petitioner's property. Initially, the respondents 2 and 3 filed the
suit in O.S.No.471 of 2014 and also filed I.A.No.475 of 2014 in the suit
and obtained interim injunction order. Using the same, the respondents 2
and 3 demolished the compound wall. Against the order in I.A.No.475 of
2014 in O.S.No.471 of 2014, the petitioner filed counter and the
injunction order was vacated, against which, the respondents 2 and 3
filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the Principal Subordinate Judge,
Puducherry and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondents 2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.11311 of 2021
and 3 withdrawn the suit in O.S.No.471 of 2014.
8.The contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
Puducherry that since the petitioner was referred as encroacher in the
interim injunction order in I.A.No.475 of 2014 in O.S.No.471 of 2014, he
cannot claim right over the property, is not acceptable. Once the civil
suit is withdrawn, the observation made in Interlocutory Application get
submerged and it has no bearing and the plaintiff had given up all his
right. There is no reservation of any right for filing fresh suit. For the
same cause of action, now the respondents 2 and 3 filed a fresh suit in
O.S.No.82 of 2021 against the petitioner. Hence, the pendency of the
suit will not have any bearing and it cannot be a reason to deny Police
protection.
9.In view of above, the respondent Police is directed to give
protection to the petitioner for putting up the compound wall. Since the
petitioner and his wife are senior citizens, the respondent Police to
cooperate with the petitioner in safeguarding his property, since the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.11311 of 2021
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
petitioner is in enjoyment of the property for the past 70 years.
10.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is
disposed of.
28.07.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vv2
To
1.The State House Officer,
Thavalakuppam Police Station,
Puducherry – 605 007.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
CRL.O.P.No.11311 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
