Tuesday, 19, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

K.Vijayakumaran vs The Superintendent Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 12008 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 12008 Mad
Judgement Date : 6 July, 2022

Madras High Court
K.Vijayakumaran vs The Superintendent Of Police on 6 July, 2022
                                                                     Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12054 of 2022


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED: 06.07.2022

                                                      CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

                                          CRL.O.P (MD) No.12054 of 2022


                     K.Vijayakumaran                                               ... Petitioner

                                                             Vs

                     1. The Superintendent of Police,
                        O/o. the Superintendent of Police,
                        Kanyakumari District.

                     2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                        O/o. the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                        Thuckalay,
                        Kanyakumari District.

                     3. The Inspector of Police,
                        Marthandam Police Station,
                        Kanyakumari District.

                     4. Pichi
                     5. Ponnappan
                     6. Rosammal
                     7. Subramanian
                     8. Chandran
                     9. Packiyanathan
                     10. Padmanaban                                         ... Respondents




                     1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                             Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12054 of 2022


                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
                     praying to issue a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate police
                     protection for constructing the compound wall in respect of petitioner's
                     property comprised in S.No.1498, Plot J and New S.No.543/5C measuring
                     to an extent of 24 cents situated at Pacode A Village Vilavancode Taluk,
                     Kanyakumari District on the basis of Civil Court decree based on the
                     petitioner's representation, dated 14.06.2022.


                                             For Petitioner     : Mr.K.Samidurai

                                             For R1 to R3       : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
                                                                  Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

                                                            ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed for a direction to the

respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate police protection for constructing the

compound wall in respect of petitioner's property comprised in S.No.1498,

Plot J and New S.No.543/5C measuring to an extent of 24 cents situated at

Pacode A Village Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District on the basis of

Civil Court decree based on the petitioner's representation, dated

14.06.2022.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12054 of 2022

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a

civil dispute between the vendor of petitioner's father namely Rengasamy

and the respondents 4 to 10 and a suit for partition was filed in O.S.No.

417/1121, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai

and it was decreed on 25.06.1960 in favour of the vendor of petitioner's

father, who was allotted to a share in Pacode A Village comprised in S.No.

1498, Plot J and New S.No.543/5C measuring to an extent of 24 cents and

other properties are also allotted. The petitioner's father died. After his

death, the above said property was in the exclusive possession and

enjoyment of the petitioner. He further submitted that the respondents 4 to

10 filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.14 of 1980, on the file of the learned

Principal Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai. After trial, the suit was

dismissed, on 16.02.1981. Aggrieved against the same, the first appeal was

filed by the respondents 4 to 10 in A.S.No.82 of 1981 before the Principal

District Court, Kanyakumari, Nagercoil and the Appeal was also dismissed

on 13.03.1996, confirming the decision of the trial Court. Challenging the

same, the respondents 4 to 10 filed the Second Appeal in S.A.No.1134 of

1996, before the Hon'ble Madras High Court. Based on the evidence on

record, this Court while, confirming the judgment of the Courts below,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12054 of 2022

dismissed the said Second Appeal with regard to the disputed property.

Now, while constructing the compound wall, the respondents 4 to 10

prevented the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking

police protection.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned

Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3

submitted that the representation of the petitioner's dated 14.06.2022 is

pending for enquiry.

4. I have considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the

records, it is seen that the fact that there is a civil dispute between the

vendor of petitioner's father and the respondents 4 to 10. In this connection,

the respondents 4 to 10 filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.14 of 1980 on the

file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, which was

dismissed with regard to the disputed property. After trial, the suit was

dismissed, on 16.02.1981. Aggrieved against the same, the respondents 4 to

10 filed the first appeal in A.S.No.82 of 1981 before the Principal District

Court, Kanyakumari and the same was also dismissed, on 13.03.1996,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12054 of 2022

confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Challenging the same, the

respondents 4 to 10 filed the Second Appeal in S.A.No.1134 of 1996, and

this Court, by judgment dated 28.04.2022, confirmed the judgment of the

Courts below and dismissed the Second Appeal with regard to the disputed

property. In these circumstances, the petitioner had prevented from

constructing the compound wall in the said property. Hence, he seeks

police protection.

5. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the third

respondent police is hereby directed to consider the petitioner's

representation, dated 14.06.2022, to provide police protection for

constructing the compound wall in the said property and pass orders on

merits in accordance with law.

6. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is

disposed of. .

06.07.2022 Internet:Yes./No Index:Yes/no ebsi

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12054 of 2022

To

1. The Superintendent of Police, O/o. the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Marthandam Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12054 of 2022

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

ebsi

ORDER IN CRL.O.P (MD) No.12054 of 2022

06.07.2022

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

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter