Madras High Court
R.Marimuthu vs The Superintendent Of Police on 22 June, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.10690 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.10690 of 2021
R.Marimuthu ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The Superintendent of Police
Sathuvachari
Vellore.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Vellore.
3.The Inspector of Police
Ariyalur Police Station
Gudiyatham. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the third respondent to register the
First Information Report on the petitioner complaint dated 05.09.2020
and file a final report within time frame as fixed by this Court.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.10690 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Anbu
for Mr.M.R.Thangavel
For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This petition has been filed to direct the third respondent
to register the First Information Report on the petitioner's complaint
dated 05.09.2020 and file a final report.
2. The petitioner had sent a complaint to the third
respondent on 07.09.2020 and also a copy to the first respondent.
However, no enquiry has been properly conducted. Thereafter, under the
guise of enquiry, the petitioner as well as the counter party were called by
the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the third respondent police and it
was informed that no action will be taken as against the complaint.
Hence, the petitioner approached the Civil Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.10690 of 2021
3. The contention of the petitioner is that he had earlier
approached the Civil Court in O.S.No.23 of 2014 and obtained favorable
order vide its judgment dated 22.07.2014. Thereafter, the property was
registered in Doc.No.11746 of 2015. The petitioner later filed an
Execution Petition in E.P.No.11 of 2016 and the Execution Petition is
ordered in his favour. On 21.12.2016, the property was delivered to the
petitioner by bail leaf in the presence of the Village Administrative
Officer and the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Ariyalur Police
Station. The bail leaf had given a possession certificate, which was
marked as a document in the typed set. Again one Dhasarathan
threatened the petitioner, using his muscle and money power and
disturbed the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner.
Thereafter, the said Palani, S/o Dhasarathan and Parthiban, S/o of
Dhasarathan are disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
petitioner. The respondent police has informed that no action will be
taken against the complaint. Hence, he filed the present petition seeking
direction to the Inspector of Police to register the complaint of the
petitioner dated 05.09.2020 and also to give necessary protection to his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.10690 of 2021
property and the same may be monitored by the Deputy Superintendent
of Police.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has
submitted that in this case, the third respondent has received the
complaint along with current papers from the Superintendent of Police in
G-1/1/007066/269/2021 dated 01.04.2021. Thereafter, a notice dated
03.05.2021 was issued asking the petitioner to appear on 04.05.2021. On
the receipt of the notice, the petitioner did not respond to the
respondents. The counter party namely, Dhasarathan had appeared on
07.05.2021 and gave his explanation. The petitioner has not co-operated
with the enquiry and for his non-cooperation, the complaint was closed.
5. Considering the above and the materials available on
record, it is seen that the petitioner is aged about 56 years and he is a
non-cooperating person. The petitioner obtained the property as per the
order of the Civil Court. Thereafter, he filed an Execution Petition and
bail leaf had handed over the possession of the property to the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.10690 of 2021
in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer, and Sub-Inspector
of Police and counter party. Thereafter, the said Dhasarathan has been
creating disturbance and threatening the petitioner of his peaceful
possession and enjoyment. The enquiry which was conducted by the third
respondent, viz., Anbazhagan, who was recently suspended for
involvements in a criminal case. 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, while dealing with
similar set of facts by relying on 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.
6. In view of the same, this Court directs the respondent
police to give protection to the petitioner and his property. Further, the
complaint of the petitioner has to be enquired by the Inspector of Police
and thereafter, if any cognizable offence is made out, the same shall be
proceeded further. The above proceedings shall be monitored by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vellore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.10690 of 2021
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
dna
7. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition
is disposed of.
22.06.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
dna
To
1.The Superintendent of Police
Sathuvachari
Vellore.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Vellore.
3.The Inspector of Police
Ariyalur Police Station
Gudiyatham.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.10690 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
