Madras High Court
P.Pitchy vs The Inspector General Of Police on 15 November, 2022
W.P.(MD)Nos.24891 and 25402 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.P(MD)Nos.24891 and 25402 of 2022
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.18992, 18994 and 18995 of 2022
W.P.(MD)No.24891 of 2022:-
P.Pitchy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Police,
South Zone,
O/o of the Inspector General of Police,
Race Course Colony, Madurai-625 002.
2.The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Superintendant of Police,
Kanyakumari District.
4.The Deputy Superintendant of Police,
Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Marthandam PS, Kanyakumari District.
6.D.N.Hari Kiran Prasad, I.P.S.,
Superintendant of Police,
Kanyakumari District.
7.T.H.Ganesh
Deputy Superintendant of Police,
Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.24891 and 25402 of 2022
8.Senthil Kumar,
Inspector of Police,
Marthandam Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
9.C.Gomathy ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned order
passed by the third Respondent under C.No.G1/28546/2022, dated
27.10.2022 and consequently, to direct the Respondents to restore the
possession of the Petitioner's property under S.No.543/5B, 1495, 1496
and 1498 and further, to direct the Respondent Police to return the
movables taken from the Petitioner's dwelling.
For Petitioner :Mr.K.R.Laxman
For R1 to R5 :Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R9 :Mr.R.Samidurai
W.P.(MD)No.25402 of 2022:-
P.Pitchy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Police,
South Zone,
O/o of the Inspector General of Police,
Race Course Colony, Madurai-625 002.
2.The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Superintendant of Police,
Kanyakumari District.
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.24891 and 25402 of 2022
4.The Deputy Superintendant of Police,
Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Marthandam PS, Kanyakumari District.
6.D.N.Hari Kiran Prasad, I.P.S.,
Superintendant of Police,
Kanyakumari District.
7.T.H.Ganesh
Deputy Superintendant of Police,
Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.
8.Senthil Kumar,
Inspector of Police,
Marthandam Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
9.C.Gomathy ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Respondents 3 to 5, not to harass
the Petitioner by interfering into the Civil Dispute by performing Katat
Panchayat on the basis of the representation of the 9th Respondent and
not to insist the Petitioner to evict from her property by violating the due
process of law without any decree from any competent civil Court in
favour of the 9th Respondent.
For Petitioner :Mr.K.R.Laxman
For R1 to R5 :Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R9 :Mr.R.Samidurai
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.24891 and 25402 of 2022
COMMON ORDER
W.P.(MD)No.24891 of 2022 had been filed seeking for a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the
third Respondent dated 27.10.2022 and consequently, to direct the
Respondents to restore the possession of the Petitioner's property under
S.No.543/5B, 1495, 1496 and 1498 and further, to direct the Respondent
Police to return the movables taken from the Petitioner's dwelling.
2.W.P.(MD)No.25402 of 2022 had been filed seeking for a Writ
of Mandamus, to direct the Respondents 3 to 5, not to harass the
Petitioner by interfering into the civil dispute by performing Katta
Panchayat on the basis of the representation of the ninth Respondent and
not to insist the Petitioner to vacate her property by violating the due
process of law without any decree from any competent civil Court in
favour of the 9th Respondent.
3.It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner
that on the strength of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.
12047 of 2022, in which, this Court had passed orders directed to
consider the representation of the ninth Respondent therein. Based on
which, the Superintendant of Police, Kanniyakumari, had passed
proceedings, as though there is an execution of warrant of delivery and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.24891 and 25402 of 2022
had directed the Inspector of Police, Marthandam Police Station, to
provide Police protection to the Petitioner, C.Gomathy wife of Selvadhass,
for execution of warrant of delivery at S.No.543/5B, Pacode Village, and
further, instructed the Deputy Superintendant of Police, Thuckalay, to
provide one Inspector, one Sub Inspector, one Police Constable (Male)
and one Police Constable (Female) from his Sub Division on 28.10.2022
for the bandobust duty to the Senior Bailif for the execution of warrant of
delivery at S.No.543/5B of Pacode village.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there
was a direction, as per the order in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12047 of 2022, to the
Superintendant of Police, Kanniyakumari District, the Deputy
Superintendant of Police, Thuckalay, the Inspector of Police, Marthandam
Police Station. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the proceedings of
the Superintendent of Police, Kanniyakumari District directing his
subordinates to provide Police protection. Further, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor invited the attention of this Court to the
details of the orders passed in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12047 of 2022, where, the
learned Single Judge in detail discussed the origin of the case originating
from the Original Suit in O.S.No.14 of 1980 and the appeal dismissed in
A.S.No.82 of 1981by the learned Principal District Judge, Kanniyakumari,
against which, a Second Appeal had been filed in S.A.No.1134 of 1996,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.24891 and 25402 of 2022
which was dismissed by this Court. The learned Additional Public
Prosecutor further submitted that the direction issued by the learned
Single Judge of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12047 of 2022 was carried
out by the Superintendant of Police in his proceedings.
5.The learned Counsel for the ninth Respondent submitted that
the suit filed by the Petitioner herein was dismissed upto the stage of
Second Appeal and the judgment of the Trial Court in O.S.No.14 of 1980
was confirmed upto the second Appeal against which, the Petitioner
herein had not agitated by way of filing further appeal before the
Honourable Supreme Court. While so, the learned Counsel for the ninth
Respondent invited the attention of this Court to the judgment of this
Court in the Second Appeal in S.A.No.1134 of 1996, wherein, it is clearly
stated that already partition was decreed and based on the partition in
1960, the parties are in possession of the properties. Therefore, the suit
filed by the Petitioner herein in O.S.No.14 of 1980, was misconceived.
6.It is further pointed out that after exhausting the remedies
available to the Petitioner herein, the ninth Respondent, who is aged 76
years, wanted to protect her possession. Therefore, she had sought
orders from this Court by exercising inherent powers of the High Court
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., based on which, the learned Single Judge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.24891 and 25402 of 2022
had passed an order in her favour. Further, the learned Counsel for the
ninth Respondent submitted that the Petitioner, having been a party to
the Proceedings in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12047 of 2022, subsequent to the
order passed by this Court, had trespassed into the property of the ninth
Respondent and damaged the CCTV and compound wall resulting in
registration of two FIRs in Cr.Nos.463 and 490 of 2022.
7.Also, the learned Counsel for the ninth Respondent submitted
that the Petitioner herein, who had filed the suit in O.S.No.14 of 1980 and
could not succeed upto the Second Appeal, had not agitated her right by
filing further appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court, and had
disobeyed the orders of this Court by trespassing into the property, which
is in possession of the ninth Respondent and causing damage to the
CCTV and compound wall. Therefore, the order already passed by this
Court was violated, which resulted in filing of the two cases, in which the
Petitioner herein is arrayed as an accused and she had approached the
High Court for anticipatory bail and was granted anticipatory bail on
condition that the Petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/-.
8.Considering the submission of the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned
Counsel for the ninth Respondent, the action of the Respondents 3 to 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.24891 and 25402 of 2022
cannot be found faulted. One of the objection by the learned Counsel for
the Petitioner is with regard to execution Petition. Whether Senior Bailif
was present or it was a typographical error of the staff of the
Superintendant of Police. It is for the Superintendant of Police to clarify.
On considering the rival contention, the Writ Petition in
W.P.(MD)No.24891 of 2022 is misconceived and hence, dismissed.
9.In view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.24891
of 2022, W.P.(MD)No.25402 of 2022 is also dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
15.11.2022
Index : Yes / No
cmr
Note: Issue order copy by 17.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.24891 and 25402 of 2022
To
1.The Inspector General of Police,
South Zone,
O/o of the Inspector General of Police,
Race Course Colony, Madurai-625 002.
2.The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Superintendant of Police,
Kanyakumari District.
4.The Deputy Superintendant of Police,
Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Marthandam PS, Kanyakumari District.
6.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.24891 and 25402 of 2022
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
cmr
W.P(MD)Nos.24891 and 25402 of 2022
15.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
