Madras High Court
S.Ramar vs The Superintendent Of Police on 1 August, 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9413 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9413 of 2023
S.Ramar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Cheranmahadevi Division,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Veeravanallur Police Station,
Tirunelveli.
4.R.Balaiah ..Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to give a police protection for the
petitioner's life and limb and removing the obstruction caused by the
fourth respondent in the irrigation canal situated in S.No.66/1A2 and
68/4 at Kiriyammalpuram Village, Cheranmahadevi Taluk, Tirunelveli
District, which is the western boundary of the petitioner's land in S.No.
66/1A3 on the basis of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.96 of
2020 before the District Munsif Court, Cheranmahadevi and the
petitioner's representation dated 16.05.2023 and in accordance with law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9413 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Jeyakumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.S.Madhavan
Government Advocate (crl.side)
for R1 to R3
Mr.C.Saravanakumar for R4
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking for police
protection against the respondent No.4 in respect of the land belonging to
the petitioner in Survey Nos.66/1A2 and 68/4 situated at
Kiriyammalpuram Village, Cheranmahadevi Taluk, Tirunelveli District
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that the petitioner and the unofficial respondent are
neighboring landholders and there are disputes in respect of enjoyment of
the property. The petitioner stated to have filed O.S.No.96 of 2020 before
the District Munsif Court, Cheranmahadevi, seeking permanent
injunction against the respondent No.4 and the same was decreed
ex-parte and even then, the respondent No.4 is still making interference
in the enjoyment of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner has filed an application before the third
respondent Police to provide protection for implementation of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9413 of 2023
injunction order, but, the same was not considered, thereby, sought for
suitable directions.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submits
that the petitioner is seeking police protection basing on the ex-parte
decree and that the fourth respondent has filed an application for setting
aside the ex-parte decree and the same was pending for enquiry, thereby,
he sought for not to direct the respondents Police to provide police
protection until the application filed by him before the competent Court
is decided.
5. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for
the official respondents that the petition filed by the petitioner was
enquired into and ultimately, after recording the submissions of the
petitioner and the fourth respondent, the same was closed.
6. The petitioner is entitled for police protection for implementing
the ex-parte decree granting injunction in his favour against the fourth
respondent. As long as there is no stay or the ex-parte decree is set aside,
the petitioner can still insist for providing police protection.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9413 of 2023
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the
respondents Police are directed to provide suitable protection until the
ex-parte decree is set aside by the Competent Court.
01.08.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ssb
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Cheranmahadevi Division,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Veeravanallur Police Station,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9413 of 2023
DR.D.NAGARJUN. J.
ssb
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9413 of 2023
01.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
