Madras High Court
V.Krishnamoorthy vs The Superintendent Of Police on 26 June, 2023
Crl.O.P.No.25992 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.25992 of 2022
V.Krishnamoorthy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Chengalpattu District,
Chengalpattu.
2.The Inspector of Police [Law & Order],
Maduranthagam Police Station,
Madhuranthagam Taluk,
Chengalpattu District.
3.Balasubramanian ... Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code to direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to
consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.06.2022 and provide
adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and for the
agricultural work in the Punja land comprised in Survey No.312/3 with an
extent of 0.71 cents, Survey No.312/4B with an extent of 2.30 acres, Survey
No.312/6 with an extent of 0.87 cents, Survey No.312/8 with an extent of
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25992 of 2022
0.17 cents in all total extent of 4.05 acres situated in No.22, Vedavakkam
Village, Maduranthagam Taluk, Chengalpattu District.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.P.Sudalaiyandi
For R1 & R2 : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R3 : Mr.N.Nithianandam
ORDER
The petitioner sent a representation on 14.06.2022 but the same was
not acted upon. Hence, the present petition is filed seeking direction to the
respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation and act on the same.
2.The petitioner is represented by his power agent S.Kucheeladoss.
On 07.04.1987, one Subburaya Reddiar filed a suit in O.S.No.42 of 1987
before the Sub Court, Chengalpattu against one Radhabai Ammal for
recovery of money with interest with a charge over the property in
S.Nos.312/3, 312/4B, 312/6 and 312/8 in Vedavakkam Village,
Madurantakam Taluk, Chengalpattu District. During the pendency of the
suit, Subburaya Reddiar passed away and his legal heir Krishnamoorthy
was impleaded as legal representative. Thereafter, the suit was decreed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25992 of 2022
favour of the said Krishnamoorthy who filed an execution petition for sale
of property to release the decree amount in E.P.No.126 of 1996 in
O.S.No.42 of 1987. Since there were no bidder, the decree holder
Mr.Krishamoorthy became the successful bidder in the auction conducted
on 17.03.1997. During the pendency of the above litigation, one
Balasubramanian/third respondent herein purchased the property from the
said Radhabai Ammal on 13.07.1987 and 17.07.1987. C.R.P.(NPD)No.4003
of 2007 was filed seeking for delivery of property and on 19.07.2019
delivery of property was handed over to the decree holder Krishnamoorthy,
the same has been recorded by the Court Amin and after effecting delivery,
report was submitted to the Central Nazir, Sub Court, Madurantakam on
22.07.2019. This Court recorded the same and disposed of the Civil
Revision Petiiton. The third respondent, who is the pendente lite purchaser
filed S.L.P. [Civil Diary] No.23784 of 2019 before the Apex Court seeking
for stay of operation of the impugned final judgment and order dated
11.03.2019 passed by this Court in C.R.P(NPD).No.4003 of 2007 on
19.07.2019. The Apex Court directed the parties to maintain status quo as
on that day. The said order copy was made ready only on 08.08.2019 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25992 of 2022
on 19.07.2019 property was delivered to the said Krishnamoorthy and he is
in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. Now, using the Apex
Court order the third respondent attempting to dispossess the said
Krishnamoorthy from the schedule mentioned property. Hence, the said
Krishnamoorthy lodged a complaint to the Superintendent of Police,
Chengalpattu on 09.04.2021, based on his complaint the Inspector of Police,
Madurantakam conducted an enquiry and submitted a report on 08.07.2021,
in which it is recorded that Krishnamoorthy is in lawful possession and
enjoyment of the property. The petitioner being the power of attorney of
Krishnamoorthy is carrying on agricultural activities in the schedule
mentioned property and now the third respondent is interfering in the
peaceful enjoyment of the petitioner and threatening him with abusive
language and muscle power. Hence, the petitioner sought for police
protection and also to take suitable action against the third respondent.
3.Heard Mr.S.P.Sudalayandi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25992 of 2022
4.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that on the complaint
of the petitioner, the petitioner and the third respondent were called for
enquiry and found that there have been several litigations between them.
He would submit that the petitioner is a Power of Attorney of
Krishnamoorthy, whose father had given loan to one Radhabai Ammal and
taken the property as security. The said Krishnamoorthy filed a civil suit
and later got property auctioned but the possession of the property was with
Radhabai Ammal. Thereafter, Execution Petition has been filed and the
property has been handed to Krishnamoorthy by the Court Amin on
19.07.2019. In the meanwhile, the said Radhabai Ammal sold the property
to the third respondent and he had taken objections for the civil suit,
execution petition as well as participated in the Civil Revision Petition. In
the meanwhile, the third respondent approached the Apex Court in S.L.P.
[Civil Diary] No.23784 of 2019 and the Apex Court ordered Status quo on
19.07.2019. He further submitted that according to the third respondent, the
possession and enjoyment of the property is with him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25992 of 2022
5.Learned counsel for the third respondent submits that the petitioner
was aware that the third respondent had already approached the Apex Court
even prior to 19.07.2019 and the petitioner suppressed the same before the
Court below. He would submit that on 19.07.2019 the Apex Court ordered
status quo and in the meanwhile, it was projected by the petitioner as though
on 19.07.2019 possession was handed over to the petitioner and memo has
been filed by the petitioner before the Court only on 23.07.2019.
6.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials,
it is seen that there has been civil litigation between the petitioner and the
third respondent, now the case is pending before the Apex Court and there
are rival claim between the petitioner and the third respondent with regard
to the possession and enjoyment of the property. In view of the same, this
Court cannot direct any police protection for the property dispute which is
pending. It is for the petitioner or the third respondent to approach the Civil
Court and seek appropriate orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25992 of 2022
7.With the above observations, the Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed.
26.06.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
cse
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Chengalpattu District,
Chengalpattu.
2.The Inspector of Police [Law & Order],
Maduranthagam Police Station,
Madhuranthagam Taluk,
Chengalpattu District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.25992 of 2022
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
Crl.O.P.No.25992 of 2022
26.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
