K.Basaria Banu vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 21254 Mad

                                                                            Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13893 of 2021


                             BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                     DATED : 25.10.2021

                                                         CORAM :

                                   THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

                                             Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13893 of 2021
                     K.Basaria Banu                                           ... Petitioner

                                                         Vs.
                     1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                       Office of the Superintendent of Police,
                       Ramanathapuram.

                     2.The Inspector of Police,
                       Kenikkarai Police Station,
                       Ramanathapuram.

                     3.Rajendran

                     4.Prasath                                                ... Respondents

                     Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of

                     Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to give police

                     protection for the life and limb of the petitioner based on the complaint

                     given by the petitioner dated 23.06.2021.

                                    For Petitioner            : Mr.K.Chengiz Khan
                                    For R-1 & R-2             : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
                                                               Government Advocate
                                                                (Criminal side)



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/


                     1/5
                                                                                 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13893 of 2021


                                                           ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents 1 and

2 to give police protection for the life and limb of the petitioner based on

the complaint given by the petitioner dated 23.06.2021.

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father, who is the

owner of the property in S.No.39/3A, 39/3A2B9 measuring to an extent of

2320 sq.ft, executed a power deed in favour of the petitioner. The third

respondent is living in the petitioner's house as a tenant with periodical

renewal of agreement. The third respondent committed default to pay the

rent arrears which come around to the tune of Rs.2,34,500/-. Thereafter, the

petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.57 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif

Court, Ramnad for ejectment of the respondents from the house premises

and for the recovery of rent arrears. On the other hand the third respondent

had also filed a suit in O.S.No.50 of 2016 before the very same Court for

seeking relief of injunction restraining them evicting the third respondent

except under due process of law. The suit filed by the petitioner's father was

decreed by judgment and decree dated 16.03.2018 and directed the private

respondents to hand over the premises within two months and to pay the

rent arrears and the private respondents agreed to vacate the premises.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13893 of 2021

3.It was landlord tenant dispute and there was an undertaking to the

vacate the premises and hand over the same. But they did not comply the

above said undertaking. So the complaint has been given by the petitioner

before the respondent police and enquiry was undertaken and during the

course of enquiry finding that it is a civil dispute and also on the basis of the

undertaking given by the third respondent that he will vacate the premises

on or before 31.07.2021, it came to be closed. Even though after the above

said deadline, the private respondent did not vacate the premises. Hence,

this petition came to be filed, seeking police protection for the purpose of

vacating the premises.

4.For the purpose of mediation, notice was ordered to the third and

fourth respondents. But the private notice sent by the petitioner was

returned as no such addressee and through Court also notice could not be

served on them. In this circumstances, the counsel for the petitioner

submitted that he may not in a position to serve notice to the respondent,

since the correct address is not known to him.

5.In view of the compromise reached between the parties in the above

said suit, however, for executing the compromise decree, police protection

cannot be granted. He has to file proper execution petition before the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13893 of 2021

concerned Court, seeking police protection for effecting delivery, if any

necessity arises.

6.So, I find that except through proper proceedings, police protection

for vacate the premises cannot be granted.

7.With the above said directions and liberty this petition stands

dismissed.

25.10.2021 Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No TM

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

To

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kenikkarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13893 of 2021

G.ILANGOVAN, J.,

TM

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13893 of 2021

25.10.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/