Madras High Court
C.Gomathy vs The Superintendent Of Police on 6 July, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12047 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.12047 of 2022
C.Gomathy ... 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.12047 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 G and New S.No.543/5B measuring
to an extent of 48 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 G and New S.No.543/5B measuring to an extent of 48 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.12047 of 2022
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a
civil dispute between the petitioner's father-in-law 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 petitioner's father-in-law, who was allotted to a
share in Pacode A Village comprised in S.No.1498, Plot G and New S.No.
543/5B measuring to an extent of 48 cents and other properties are also
allotted. The petitioner's father-in-law died. After his death, the property
devolved upon the legal heirs of the petitioner's husband and his children.
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 Principal Sub Court, 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.No1134 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, dismissed the said Second Appeal with regard to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12047 of 2022
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
petitioner 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
Principal Sub Court, 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, confirming the judgment of the
trial Court. Challenging the same, the respondents 4 to 10 filed the Second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12047 of 2022
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, she 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.12047 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.12047 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
ebsi
ORDER IN
CRL.O.P (MD) No.12047 of 2022
06.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
