Madras High Court
Sri Ramakrishna Thapovanam vs The Superintendent Of Police on 1 March, 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl OP(MD)No.1226 of 2022
Sri Ramakrishna Thapovanam,
Rep.by its Secretary,
Swamy Sathyananda,
Thiruparayathurai, Srirangam, Trichy. ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Theni, Theni District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Uthamapalayam Division, Uthamapalayam,
Theni District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Odaipatti Police Station,
Odaipatti, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.
4.Swami Athmananda,
Sri Sarada Niketan College of Arts-Science
for Women,
Dakshineswaram, Kanavaiputhur Post,
Salem - 636 354.
Presently residing at
Pallapalayam, Via Irugoor,
Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore Distrcit. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.Pc, to
direct the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate protection to the
petitioner and its members in undertaking the work of surveying and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
fencing the properties in S.Nos.13/1, 13/3, 17/2, 17/3, 17/4, 17/5, 17/6,
17/7, 24/1 and 24/2 in Odaipatti Village, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni
District admeasuring an extent of 8 acres 86 cents and lands in S.Nos.
11/2A, 11/2B, 11/2C, 11/2D, 11/2E, 11/2F, 11/3A, 11/3B, 11/3C,
11/3D, 11/3E, 18/3, 24/2, 25/8, 7/4 and 7/5 admeasuring 33 acres and
80 cents in Seepalakottai Village, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni Distrcit
and using the same for developmental activities peacefully and without
any unlawful disturbances from the fourth respondent or any third
parties or disgruntled elements in any manner whatsoever and pass
such other suitable orders and thus render justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramakrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh,
Government Advocate (crl.side)
for R1 to R3
Mr.M.P.Senthil for R4
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking police
protection. The fourth respondent opposes the grant of relief primarily
on the ground of maintainability. According to the fourth respondent,
the petition mentioned property no doubt was declared to belong to the
petitioner-Thapovanam. But then, by a resolution, it was permitted to
be in the possession and enjoyment of the fourth respondent.
Therefore, the fourth respondent is very much having independent civil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
rights and the same cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.PC. The learned counsel for
the fourth respondent relied on the decision reported in (2007) 6 SCC
517 (Moran M.Baselios Marthoma Mathews II and ors vs. State
of Kerala and ors) and contended that High Court cannot in these
proceedings go into disputed questions of title.
2.There is no dispute on basic facts. The fourth respondent was
an ordained Sanyasi and a part of Shri.Ramakrishna
Thapovanam/petitioner. But then, dispute arose between Thapovanam
on the one hand and the fourth respondent on the other leading to
institution of O.S No.1254 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Court,
Trichirappalli. The suit schedules comprised properties located in
different places. One of the items is located in the petition mentioned
villages. The petition mentioned properties forming part of a larger
extent was one of the suit schedule items. By judgment and decree
dated 07.08.1998, the Thapovanam was declared to be the absolute
owner of the suit properties and educational agency with respect to the
suit institutions A & B Schedule properties and directions were issued
against the fourth respondent herein who figured as the first defendant
in the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the fourth respondent Sri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ramakrishna Ashramam Trust and Sri Ramakrishna Shevasraman Trust
filed A.S No.568 of 1998 before the Madras High Court. Vide judgment
and decree dated 13.10.1999, the appeal was dismissed. Challenging
the same, the fourth respondent herein and others filed Civil Appeal
No.2395 of 2000 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The civil
appeal suffered dismissal on 13.04.2005. Therefore, it is too late in
the day for the fourth respondent to assert any right or claim in respect
of the petition mentioned property against the petitioner Thapovanam.
3.It appears that the governing council of the Thapovanam had
passed a resolution on 25.04.2009 granting permission to the fourth
respondent herein to remain in possession of the petition mentioned
property during his lifetime. However, the fourth respondent had
alienated portions of the suit item located in the petition mentioned
villages. Though the petitioner is a Society registered under the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, the properties
belonging to the petitioner partake the character of trust. They
cannot be parted with at the whims and fancies of any particular person
or group of persons. When the highest court of the land had declared
that the suit properties including the petition mentioned lands belong to
the petitioner Thapovanam, it must be given its fullest effect.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.Be that as it may, the petitioner only seeks to undertake the
work of surveying and fencing the property that has still not been
alienated by the fourth respondent. As per roster, I was competent to
deal with writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India in respect of criminal matters and petitions filed under Section 482
of Cr.Pc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in
(2006) 4 SCC 501 (P.R.Muralidharan and ors vs. Swami
Dharmananda Theertha Padar and ors) had held that an order for
police protection can be granted only when the court is approached for
protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a
civil court and that it cannot be extended to cases where rights have
not been determined either finally by the civil court or at least at an
interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner.
5.In the case on hand, not only the civil court has finally declared
rights of the petitioner Thapovanam over the petition mentioned
property but the same was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. I am not adjudicating any civil right in these proceedings. I
am only permitting the petitioner to take the assistance of the police for
carrying out the work of surveying and fencing. Respectfully following
the ratio laid down in (2006) 4 SCC 501 (P.R.Muralidharan and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ors vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and ors), the
respondents 1 to 3 herein are directed to provide protection to the
petitioner to carry out the petition mentioned work of surveying and
fencing of the petition mentioned lands. This criminal original petition is
allowed. No costs.
01.03.2022
skm
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 Superintendent of Police, Theni, Theni District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Uthamapalayam Division,
Uthamapalayam, Theni District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Odaipatti Police Station,
Odaipatti, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
skm
Crl OP(MD)No.1226 of 2022
01.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
