Madras High Court
V.R.Y.Anandha Kumar vs The Director General Of Police on 4 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15977 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04/04/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15977 of 2019
V.R.Y.Anandha Kumar : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director General of Police,
Office of the Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai.
2.The Inspector General of Police,
Central Zone,
Kajamalai,
Edamalaipatti Pudur,
Tiruchirappalli,
Tamil Nadu-620 023.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Thanjavur District,
Thanjavur.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thanjavur District,
Thanjavur.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Pattukottai Town Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
6.Vellaichamy : Respondents
(Amended as per the order of
this court , dated 04/09/2020
in Crl.MP(MD)No.10082 of 2019
in Crl.OP(MD)No.15977 of 2019)
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15977 of 2019
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the respondents to provide
adequate armed police protection to the petitioner and his
family residing at Madhu Sri Akkabai Ammani Charitable
Trust, 73/116, Big Bazaar Street, Pattukottai Town,
Pattukottai and also consequently direct the respondents to
provide adequate armed police protection to execute the
civil decree of the court below.
For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S Kumar
For R1to R5 : Mr.SS.Madhavan
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
For 6th Respondent : Mr.G.Mariappan
O R D E R
This criminal original petition is filed by the
petitioner seeking direction to provide armed police
protection to him and his family members, residing in Madhu
Sri Akkabai Ammani Charitable Trust and subsequently,
directing the official respondents to provide armed police
protection to execute the civil decree.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15977 of 2019
2.The facts in brief:-
The petitioner is the Hereditary Trustee of Madhu Sri
Akkabai Ammani Charitable Trust, Pattukottai. The Trust was
originally formed and founded by Madhu Sri Akkubai Ammani
Rao and purchased the above Inam lands from Brahimins in
between the year 1813 to 1820. They endowed the property,
which was purchased by her to the Trust for the purpose of
administration, welfare and development of the Trust. Out
of the above said purchase of lands, 200 acres of lands
were gifted to 10 Hindu temples and 4 Muslim Dhargas.
During the year 1964 the British Government had issued a
Title Deed for a portion of the properties. The Trust was
having iruvaram rights over the above said lands and were
leased out to several persons for cultivation.
3.After the independence of India, the lands were
taken over as per the provisions of the Madras Estate Land
Act 2/1947 and followed by Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition
and Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act 1948. The take over lands
were challenged and finally, the Division Bench of this
court, confirmed the right, title and possession of the
Trust in A.S Nos.223 and 292 of 1956. Taking advantage of
the above said litigation, number of leaseholders stopped
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15977 of 2019
the payment of rent. So because of the above said
litigation and non payment of the lease amount, the Trust
ran into financial loss. Several suits nearing 540 were
filed seeking recovery of possession. These suits were
filed as pauper original petitions. Most of the suits ended
in favour of the Trust upto to the second appeal stage and
remaining cases are now pending. The petitioner has been
recognised as a Trustee of the above Charity. Most of the
properties are in the hands of the rich people,
compromising in political and anti-social elements. Because
of the continuous litigation and decrees for recovery of
possession, enmity has developed. The petitioner is to
appear before various authorities in connection with the
Trust administration. They also have to attend the
functions in Thanjavur and North India. The tenants of the
Trust at Maharajasamudhram Village, formed the Association
called 'Maharajasamudram Redeeming committee' and they make
protest for the recovery activities of the Trust. On one
occasion, when the court Amin went for effecting delivery,
because of the urgency of the police protection, delivery
could not be executed. While executing the decree in O.S
No.341 of 1975, the village people gathered and tried to
attack the petitioner and court officials as well as the
revenue authorities. So, a case in Crime No.907 of 2003
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15977 of 2019
was registered on the file of the Pattukottai Police
Station. On one occasion, after taking delivery, the
judgment debtors entered into the property and created
trouble, which resulted in a subsequent incident, for which
also a case was registered by the Pattukottai Town Police.
So because of the above said continuous trouble, the
petitioner and his family members are in fear of their
life. Considering the above said situation, the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Pattukottai also directed to
provide police protection to the petitioner and his family
members, by order, dated 08/03/2001. The Revenue Divisional
Officer has also passed such a similar order.
4.E.P No.47 of 2010, 11 of 2015 and 17 of 2015 are
pending before the trial court. Delivery warrant was
issued. Even though the police protection was ordered, they
are not coming forward to give protection, for which also,
a case in Crime No.257 of 2019 was registered. So,
apprehending the continuous trouble, not only in protecting
the life of the petitioner, but also in getting the
property delivered, he sent a representation, dated
07/08/2019. But that was not considered properly. So this
petition is filed for the above reliefs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15977 of 2019
5.Intervening petition was filed by one Mr.Vellaichamy
and that was allowed by this court, by order, dated
04/09/2020. He was also permitted to argue the matter.
After allowing the above said petition, he has also filed
additional typed set of papers.
6.Heard both sides.
7.When the petitioner was argued, this court made a
specific query to the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, as to how the armed police protection for
effecting the civil court decree can be granted by this
court. For that, he would submit that in spite of repeated
warrants, that have been issued by the trial court, those
could not be carried out, because of the continuous trouble
that has been made by the judgment debtors. He has also
narrated several events, as mentioned in the preamble
portion of this order.
8.No doubt that trouble has been created, not only by
the judgment debtors, but also by the villagers while
executing the court decrees. It is also stated that still
the execution petitions are pending before the trial court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15977 of 2019
9.At one point of time, according to the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, police protection was
ordered, but the authorities failed to comply the above
said order for executing the delivery. If such is the
grievance of the petitioner, then he ought ought to have
filed proper petition by invoking Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for proper relief. But this
petitioner instead of taking such steps and recourse,
straightway filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C.
10.It is further submitted that if the court decree
has been granted, police protection must be given for
enforcement of civil court orders. In support of his
contention, he would rely upon the decision of this court
in the case of Radhika Sri Hari and another Vs.
Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore (2014(2) CTC 695. But
the issue involved in this matter is entirely different.
11.As mentioned earlier, the petitioner can invoke the
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. But certainly, he
cannot invoke the section 482 Cr.P.C for the purpose of
effecting the civil court decree, which is not permissible
in law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15977 of 2019
12.When this was pointed to the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, he has submitted that he will
restrict his claim with regard to granting of armed police
protection to the petitioner and his family members.
13.The learned counsel appearing for the intervener
would submit that absolutely, there is no objection to pass
the above said order, if the petitioner apprehends any
threat to his life. But with regard to the police
protection for effecting delivery, this court has no power.
So, the objection that has been made by the intervener, as
mentioned earlier, is acceptable.
14.It is further submitted by the learned counsel
appearing for the intervener that several persons have put
up pucca construction in the property and settled, unless
the petitioner takes step for removing the obstructions,
the court cannot execute the order. He has also produced
the order copy passed by this court in CMP(MD)No.9583 of
2019 in CRP(MD)No. 1874 of 2019, dated 18/10/2019, which
was filed by one S.V.Anand, who was the obstructor to the
execution proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15977 of 2019
15.But whether that CRP(MD)No.1874 of 2019 has been
disposed of or not is not clear on record. Now whatever, it
may be, as mentioned earlier, the the petitioner has to
work out his remedy only in the pending proceedings.
16.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side)
would submit that trouble that has been created by the
judgment debtors as well as the villagers, while effecting
the delivery is true. Even the police authorities are not
in a position to face the situation.
17.No doubt that extraordinary situation has been
created by the judgment debtors as well as the villagers.
It is for the court, which is dealing with the execution
petition to take effective steps. But, as mentioned
earlier, the relief that can be granted is only the police
protection to the petitioner and his family members.
18.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would rely upon the order that has been passed by the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukottai to provide police
protection to the petitioner and his family members. The
Inspector of Police, Police, Pattukottai, has replied
stating that depending upon the situation, police
protection will be granted, whenever trouble arises and on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15977 of 2019
intimation. In respect of permanent police protection, they
have to approach the Superintendent of Police, as per law,
which is, dated 21/07/2001. Again another request was made
to the Home Secretary, Chennai and that was also forwarded
to the concerned police Department, which, is dated
10/03/2011. Again another order was passed by the Revenue
Divisional Officer, dated 21/04/2013 requesting the police
officials to provide police protection and subsequently,
representations were also made continuously to various
authorities. As has been set out in the typed set of
papers, the petitioner has also moved Crl.OP(MD)No.1717 of
2015 before this court seeking police protection. That was
dismissed as not pressed, on 12/02/2015. The Superintendent
of Police, Thanjavur, has passed an order directing the
petitioner to remit the requisite fees for providing police
protection. The total fee of Rs.60,960/- was ordered to be
remitted. It appears that, that was with reference to the
protection for making delivery. In 2019 also, the
petitioner has filed a petition before the District Munsif
Court, Pattukottai, in EA No.13 of 2019 seeking police
protection for effecting the delivery. The subsequent
developments are with reference to the delivery warrants
and returns made by the Court Amins, which are not relevant
for our consideration, for the reasons stated above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15977 of 2019
19.Finally, seeking police protection to the
petitioner and his family members, he made a representation
on 14/08/2019, which was also addressed to several
authorities, including the Inspector of Police,
Pattukottai. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that,
that was not property attended and no action has been
taken. Pursuant to which, this petition has been filed.
20.Section 13 of the Police Act reads as follows:-
“13.Additional Police-officers
employed at cost of individuals.--It shall
be lawful for the Inspector-General of
Police, or any Deputy Inspector-General, or
Assistant Inspector-General, or for the
District Superintendent, subject to the
general direction of the Magistrate of the
district, on the application of any person
showing the necessity thereof, to depute
any additional number of police-officers to
keep the peace at any place within the
general police-district, and for such time
as shall be deemed proper. Such force
shall be exclusively under the orders of
the District Superintendent, and shall be
at the charge of person making the
application.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15977 of 2019
21.Section 13 provides for grant of police protection
to the individual. The ground on which that can be granted
is the threat perspective.
22.From the perusal of the records and the documents
produced as stated above, it is seen that the petitioner
and his family members are facing trouble at the hands of
the judgment debtors as well as the villagers and in more
than one occasion also, even the Revenue Authorities also
suggested police protection to the petitioner and his
family members.
23.So I am of the considered view that a direction can
be issued to the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur to
consider the representation, that has been made by the
petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order and after ascertaining, the
threat, police protection may be granted to the petitioner
and his family members. The compliance report must be
submitted to the Registry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15977 of 2019
24.With the above direction, this criminal original
petition is ordered.
04/04/2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
er
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15977 of 2019
To,
1.The Director General of Police,
Office of the Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai.
2.The Inspector General of Police,
Central Zone,
Kajamalai,
Edamalaipatti Pudur,
Tiruchirappalli,
Tamil Nadu-620 023.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Thanjavur District,
Thanjavur.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thanjavur District,
Thanjavur.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Pattukottai Town Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
6.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15977 of 2019
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
er
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15877 of 2019
04/04/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
