Madras High Court
A.Leonald vs The Inspector Of Police on 18 February, 2025
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22194 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22194 of 2024
A.Leonald .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police
Sayalkudi Police Station
Ramanathapuram District
2. Ramalakshmi
3. Karthigai Murugan
4. Mariyappan
5. Saravanakumar .. Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
to direct the first respondent to provide adequate police protection to the
petitioner based on his complaint dated 22.10.2024 for fencing the lands in
S.No.293/1A to an extent of 4acres and 95 cents situated at V.V.R. Nagar,
Sayalkudi, Ramanathapuram District.
For Petitioner : Mrs.N.Krishnaveni, Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Thilagar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
No.1 Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
No.2 to 5 : Mr.K.C.Ramalingam
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:18:33 am )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22194 of 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the first
respondent to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner based on
his complaint dated 22.10.2024 for fencing the lands in S.No.293/1A to an
extent of 4acres and 95 cents situated at V.V.R. Nagar, Sayalkudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner is the owner of the property in S.No.293/1A to
an extent of 4 acres and 95 cents situated at V.V.R. Nagar, Sayalkudi,
Ramanathapuram District. There are more than 250 palm trees available in
the said land. While so, in the year 2014 the respondents 2 to 5 trespassed
into the property of the petitioner and used to loot toddy and palm juice
from the trees illegally and sold to others. The said Saravanakumar was
working as Constable. Thereafter due to evil mind the fifth respondent
insisted his mother Ramalakshmi, his brother Karthigai Murugan, his
uncle Mariappan to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction
against the family members of the petitioner in O.S.No.185 of 2019 on the
file of the District Munsif Court, Kadaladi and the said suit was dismissed
for default on 11.01.2023. Thereafter petition was filed to restore the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:18:33 am )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22194 of 2024
and the same is pending before the Court. Already the petitioner and his
uncle S.T.Manoharan filed a suit against respondents 2 to 4 in O.S.No.17
of 2014 before the Munsif Court, Muthukulathur for permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from claiming right over the parties. The said
suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner and his uncle through decree
and judgment dated 23.04.2019. Thereafter the uncle of the petitioner
Manoharan sold his share to the petitioner by sale deed dated 11.01.2023
and patta was also issued in the name of the petitioner. The respondents 2
to 4 herein also preferred an appeal in A.S. No.11 of 2023 before the Sub
Court, Muthukulathur and the same is also pending and no any interim
order passed in the said appeal. The respondents 2 to 4 illegally trespassed
into the petitioner's property and looted toody and palm juice, thereby First
Information Report has been registered in Crime No. 101 of 2015 for the
offences under Sections 447,379,294(b) and 506(ii)of IPC and the same is
also pending. Therefore the petitioner sought for police protection to his
family to enter into land in S.No.293/1A and the same was closed by
directing the parties to work out their remedy before the Civil Court. The
petitioner has valid decree in his favour. While so the order of the civil
Court has to be obliged by the private respondents but they have not
obliged the order of the Court. Again the petitioner filed a petition before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:18:33 am )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22194 of 2024
this Court in W.P(MD) No.20283 of 2023 and this Court by an order dated
22.08.2023 directed the authorities to dispose of the petitioner's
representation as early as possible not later than two weeks. Thereafter on
22.10.2024 the petitioner sent a complaint to the first respondent for
fencing his property in S.No.293/1A to an extent of 4 acres and 95 cents at
V.V.R. Nagar, Sayalkudi, Ramanathapuram District, but no action has
been taken on the petitioner's complain, hence the present petition has
been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5 would
submit that there is a civil dispute pending between the parties and
already the petitioner and his uncle filed a suit in O.S. No.17 of 2014 on
the file of the District Munsif Court, Muthukulathur and the same was
decreed on 23.04.2019 in favour of the petitioner and his uncle. However
the respondents 2 to 4 preferred an appeal in A.S.No.11 of 2023 on the file
of the Sub Court, Muthukulathur and the same is pending for adjudication.
During the pendency of the appeal the petitioner has attempted to fence the
property illegally. Therefore for the disputed property police protection
cannot be given.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:18:33 am )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22194 of 2024
4. The learned Government Advoate(Crl.side) appearing for the
first respondent would submit that there is a civil dispute pending between
the parties. Though the petitioner has decree in his favour, since appeal is
pending before the appellate Court, they are unable to give police
protection for fencing the land.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. In this case there is a civil dispute pending between the parties in
respect of disputed property and now the petitioner want to fence the
property. Already the petitioner and his uncle filed a suit in O.S. No.17 of
2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Muthukulathur and the same
was decreed on 23.04.2019 in favour of the petitioner and his uncle.
However the respondents 2 to 4 preferred an appeal in A.S.No.11 of 2023
on the file of the Sub Court, Muthukulathur and the same is pending for
adjudication. There is no stay of operation of the decree by the appellate
Court and therefore the decree is still in force. Since the petitioner has
civil decree in his favour inorder to protect his property the petitioner
attempted to fence over the property. Though appeal is pending till the
disposal of the appeal the decree passed by the trial Court is in force
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:18:33 am )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22194 of 2024
therefore the petitioner has decree in his favour and therefore it is the duty
of the police to give protection for fencing the land.
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also
relied on the judgments of this Court:
a)V.Duraisamy .vs. The Inspector of Police, Mettupalayam Police
Station, Mettupalayam and others in W.P.No.15250 of 2017
b) M.Manimaran .vs. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy District
and others in W.P(MD) No.10742 of 2019
c)V.Gurusamy .vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District
and others in W.P(MD) No.17135 of 2024
8. On a careful perusal of the above said judgments it is clear that
when the police protection is sought for implementation of the civil court
it should be readily given and the police should not insist for court
direction to give police protection. In the case on hand also the petitioner
has decree in his favour and though the appeal is pending there is no stay
of operation of the decree and thereby the decree is still in force.
Therefore it the duty of the police to give police protection but they have
not given police protection, therefore he has approached this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:18:33 am )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22194 of 2024
9. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the opinion that
the petitioner is entitled to the relief of police protection and the first
respondent is directed to give police protection to the petitioner to fence
the property and the petitioner is also directed to approach the police by
fixing a particular date. It is also to be noted that if the appeal is allowed
the respondents 2 to 5 are entitled to relief under Section 144 of the Code
of Civil Procedure and they are at liberty to take appropriate steps in the
manner know to law.
10. The Criminal Original Petition stands allowed with the above
direction. No costs.
18.02.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
aav
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:18:33 am )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22194 of 2024
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Sayalkudi Police Station
Ramanathapuram District
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:18:33 am )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22194 of 2024
P.DHANABAL,J.
aav
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22194 of 2024
18.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 11:18:33 am )
