Madras High Court
S.Mala vs The Commissioner Of Police on 4 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
WP.No.5143 of 2021
S.Mala
...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
N.132, Commissioner office Building,
EVK Sampath Salai, chennai-7.
2. The Joint Commissioner of Police,
No.264, TH Road, Tondiarpet, chennai.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
New Washermenpet Police Station,
TH Road, Chennai.
4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Thiruvottiyur Range, Adjacent to Thiruvottiyur H-8 Police Station,
No.951, TH Road, Kaladipet, Chennai-19.
5. The Inspector of Police,
H-5, New Washermenpet Police Station,
Cross Road, New Washermenpet, Chennai.
6. V.Sathiyanarayan
7. J.Mohanasundaram
...Respondents
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th, 5th and 6th respondents, their men,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
officers, representatives etc., not to interfere in the civil disputes between the
1
petitioner and the 7th respondent and between their respective families and
further direct the 1st, 2nd , 3rd respondents to provide necessary protection to the
life and property of the petitioner and her family.
For Petitioner : Mr.Arun Anbumani
For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan R1 to R5
Government Advocate
ORDER
This petition has been filed for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing
respondents 4 to 6 not to interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioner
and the 7th respondent and for a further direction to the respondent police to
grant police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and his family.
2. The case of the petitioner is that there was a private dispute between
the petitioner and her family members against the 7th respondent. The same
became a subject matter before this Court and the petitioner had filed petitions
before this Court seeking to set aside the judgment and decree passed in Second
Appeal on the ground of fraud played before this Court. Those petitions were
allowed by this Court by an order dated 16.09.2020 and it will be relevant to
extract paragraph No19, in the said order:-
''19. A careful reading of the above paragraphs clearly would
show that any judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the
Court is a nullity and non est in the eye of law and the judgment
can be challenged in collateral proceedings. Therefore, I am of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
considered opinion that the objection raised by the
respondents/appellants that a fresh and independent suit along
should be filed, is devoid of any merit, hence, the same is liable to
the repelled. Secondly, the further argument advanced by the
learned Senior counsel for the respondents that the petitioners were
not parties before the Courts below, therefore, they cannot maintain
the present petitions without seeking leave of the Court, is also
liable to be rejected, in view of the sole reason that they obtained
the order by playing fraud. Moreover, the respondents herein at the
time of moving memos of compromise had not sought the leave of
this court when the second appeals had gone abated one decade
ago, hence, they cannot be allowed to be heard to support the
impugned judgments and decrees obtained by playing fraud with
the Court. Therefore, the memos of compromise dated 09.07.2021
filed deceptively shall stand cancelled.''
3. By virtue of the above order, the earlier petitions filed in the second
appeal by the 7th respondent were dismissed.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the above order, the 7 th
respondent was able to influence the police and the revenue officials and also
take the help of a group of advocates and thereby, there is a continuous threat to
the possession and enjoyment of the property.
5. The petitioner, left with no other option, has filed the present writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
petition seeking for a direction to the police and the revenue officials not to
interfere with the civil dispute and also for a further direction to grant police
protection.
6. Heard Mr.Arun Anbumai, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.C.Raghavan, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondents 1 to 6.
7. In the considered view of this Court, neither the police nor the revenue
officials can have any say with regard to the dispute between the petitioner and
the 7th respondent. Therefore, they cannot interfere in the dispute. The main
grievance of the petitioner seems to be the attitude of the 7th respondent in
engaging the services of some advocates who are said to be causing nuisance
and interference to the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. It is under
these circumstances, the petitioner is seeking for police protection.
8. In the considered view of this Court, the 7th respondent, if at all has any
right in this property, can only work out his right before the competent court.
The police or the revenue official or any advocate will have no role to play and
they cannot interfere in the dispute. If the 7 th respondent engages the service of
some advocates to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property
of the petitioner and cause threat to the petitioner, the 5th respondent cannot be a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
mute spectator and he is expected to take appropriate action in accordance with
law.
9. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondents 4 to 6 not to interfere with the civil dispute between the parties.
There shall be a further direction to the 5th respondent to instruct the 7th
respondent not to cause any threat or bring about a law and order problem by
engaging advocates and to work out his remedy before the competent Court. If
inspite of such instructions, the 7th respondent resorts to any threat, appropriate
action shall take against him in accordance with law. If necessary, the 5th
respondent shall also provide police protection to ensure that the possession and
enjoyment of the property of the petitioner is not put to threat. No costs.
04.03.2021
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
rli
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
rli
To
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
N.132, Commissioner office Building,
EVK Sampath Salai, chennai-7.
2. The Joint Commissioner of Police,
No.264, TH Road, Tondiarpet, chennai.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
New Washermenpet Police Station,
TH Road, Chennai.
4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Thiruvottiyur Range, Adjacent to Thiruvottiyur H-8 Police Station,
No.951, TH Road, Kaladipet, Chennai-19.
5. The Inspector of Police,
H-5, New Washermenpet Police Station,
Cross Road, New Washermenpet, Chennai.
6. The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Chennai – 600 104.
WP.No.5143 of 2021
04.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
