Madras High Court
Nandha Thirumal vs The State Rep. By on 1 October, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.12305 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.12305 of 2021
Nandha Thirumal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State Rep. By,
Inspector of Police,
Auroville Police Station,
Villupuram District.
2.Kalyana Sundaram
3.Kaliyaperumal ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to direct the 1st respondent Police to provide
necessary Police protection to the life and property of the petitioner in
respect of the property measuring to an extent of 1 Acre and 48 cents of
Punja Lands comprised in R.S.No.231/2A and New R.S.No.267/1, situated at
Thiruchitrambalam Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District on the basis of
the complaint of the petitioner dated 03.05.2021 pending on the file of the 1st
respondent Police in C.S.R.No.206 of 2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathish Rajan
For R1 : Mr.A.Damodaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : No Appearance
For R3 : Mr.V.Balamurugane
*****
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.12305 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the 1st
respondent Police to provide Police protection to the life and property of the
petitioner measuring to an extent of 1.48 acres of punja lands comprised in
R.S.No.231/2A and New R.S.No.267/1, situated at Thiruchitrambalam
Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District on the basis of the complaint, dated
03.05.2021 given to the 1st respondent Police in C.S.R.No.206 of 2021.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property in
dispute was inherited by the petitioner from his forefathers and thereafter, he
is possession and enjoyment of the same. The learned counsel further
submitted that the 2nd respondent is an Elected Representative of the
Puducherry Assembly and the 3rd respondent is his benami. Using this
influence, the 3rd respondent is not allowing the petitioner to enjoy is
property and constructed a wall across the pathway and obstructed the
movement of the petitioner. When the petitioner questioned the same, he
was abused, threatened by the muscle men. Hence, the petitioner lodged a
complaint before the 1st respondent Police and the same taken on file in
C.S.R.No.206 of 2021, but no action taken thereafter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.12305 of 2021
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that earlier,
the 3rd respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.29 of 2009 before the learned
District Munsif, Vanur and the same was decreed in his favour, as against the
same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in A.S.No.70 of 2013 before the
learned Principal Sub Judge, Tindivanam. The learned Principal Sub Judge,
Tindivanam, by judgment, dated 16.02.2017 had allowed the appeal finding
that the petitioner proved his possession and enjoyment of the property
through supporting documents. Hence, the petitioner's right over the
property has been declared by the Lower Appellate Court, against which the
3rd respondent filed Second Appeal in S.A.No.553 of 2017, which is pending
before this Court, but no stay or any interim order passed. Earlier, the
petitioner lodged a complaint on 11.01.2018 to the 1st respondent Police in
C.S.R.No.10 of 2018. but no action was taken. Hence, he petitioner filed a
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in Crl.O.P.No.9893 of 2018, wherein this
Court by order, dated 10.02.2021 closed the petition for the reason that the
complaint was of the year 2018 and the cause of action may not survive by
efflux of time and granted liberty to the petitioner to lodge a fresh complaint.
Hence, the present petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.12305 of 2021
4.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent
submitted that the petitioner is trying to get an order from this Court, to
circumvent the civil Court finding and somehow take the property by force.
Earlier, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent with muscle men to
encroach upon the property in dispute and also threatened his relatives. He
further submitted that the property in dispute was attached by the civil Court
in O.S.No.303 of 1931 and auction petition in E.P.No.63 of 1935. This
property was purchased by the 3rd respondent and Venugopal Chettiyar on
02.11.2007. After purchasing the property, the 3rd respondent became owner
and has been enjoying the property. Now, the petitioner by creating some
forged documents, claims right over the property. The Lower Appellate
Court failed to look into these aspects and dismissed the suit in A.S.No.70 of
2013, against which the petitioner preferred Second Appeal in S.A.No.553 of
2017, which is pending before this Court. Thus, the petitioner has no right
over the disputed property and he unnecessarily making false allegations as
though the 3rd respondent using the influence of the 2nd respondent,
attempting to encroach the property. Further, the learned counsel for the 3rd
respondent referred the complaint of the petitioner, dated 03.05.2021 and
submitted that the petitioner's complaint is a dramatic version as though the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.12305 of 2021
3rd respondent put up a wall and had obstructed public pathway. Now, the
3rd respondent is ready for appointment of an independent person to visit the
property and to find the factual position. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of
this petition.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st
respondent submitted that on the complaint of the petitioner, dated
03.05.2021, C.S.R.No.206 of 2021 was assigned. On enquiry, it was found
that there is a long drawn battle between the petitioner and the 3rd
respondent. The 3rd respondent succeeded in the suit in O.S.No.29 of 2009
before the trial Court and thereafter, the Lower Appellate Court had set aside
the judgment of the trial Court and held in favour of the petitioner in
A.S.No.70 of 2013, as against which now, the 3rd respondent filed Second
Appeal in S.A.No.553 of 2017, which is pending before this Court. In view
of the contrary verdict of the Courts below, it would be appropriate that the
parties to await the verdict of this Court in S.A.No.553 of 2017 and
thereafter, seek for Police protection, otherwise it would be termed that the
Police are interfering in the civil dispute.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.12305 of 2021
6.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record.
7.It is seen that a civil dispute is pending between the petitioner and
the 3rd respondent and there is contrary decisions of the Courts below. While
being so, it would be appropriate that the parties to await the verdict of the
Second Appeal in S.A.No.553 of 2017. In case of exigency, they can
approach the civil Court, obtain orders and thereafter, the 1st respondent
Police can act accordingly.
8.With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is
disposed of.
01.10.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vv2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.12305 of 2021
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Auroville Police Station,
Villupuram District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.12305 of 2021
M.NIRMAL KUMAR., J.
vv2
Crl.O.P.No.12305 of 2021
01.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
