Allowed

Dr.C.Mohan, M/a 69 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC14 Mar 2018CRL OP/4310/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC regarding a property dispute, the court allowed the petition and granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the police for protection while constructing on the property, based on their alleged title and possession.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Liberty granted to petitioners to approach the first respondent for police protection if threatened during construction completion within 2 days.

Dr.C.Mohan, M/a 69 Years, Vs the State Rep… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.03.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.4310 of 2018

¶6

1.Dr.C.Mohan
2.Mrs.Arunadevi Mohan ... Petitioners
Vs
1. State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
V-7, Nolambur Police Station,
Chennai - 600 095.
2. L.B.Senthilkumar
3. S.Lakshmi ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the respondent police to give police protection to the petitioners and their property viz., Plot Nos.15A, 15B, 15C, 16A, 16B & 16C, Jeswanth Nagar, Layout comprised in Survey Nos.603/13, 603/16, 603/17, 603/13 & 603/14, Mogapair Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District admeasuring in all about 25,260 Square feet or thereabouts.

¶8

For Petitioners: Mr.S.Rajasekar For Respondents: Mrs.Kritika Kamal.P Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 : Mr.K.Pradeep Raj for R2 & R3

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The prayer sought for in the present petition is to direct the respondent police to give police protection to the petitioners and their property viz., Plot Nos.15A, 15B, 15C, 16A, 16B & 16C, Jeswanth Nagar, Layout comprised in Survey Nos.603/13, 603/16, 603/17, 603/13 & 603/14, Mogapair Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District admeasuring in all about 25,260 Square feet.

¶11

Heard, Mr.S.Rajasekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs.P.Kritika Kamal, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent and Mr.K.Pradeep

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

Raj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 & 3.

¶14

On 03.07.2015 the petitioners' herein and respondents 2 and 3 had entered into a registered sale agreement in connection with the property in Plot Nos. 15A, 15B, 15C, 16A, 16B & 16C, Jeswanth Nagar, Layout comprised in Survey Nos.603/13, 603/16, 603/17, 603/13 & 603/14, Mogapair Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District, whereby the parties have agreed to register the same on or before 31.10.2015. The further understanding was that the possession of the property will be handed over to the respondents 2 and 3 at the time of registration of the sale deed along with the title deeds and the balance of sale consideration, at the time of registration of the sale. Admittedly, no suit for specific performance is pending.

¶15

It is brought to my notice that earlier, the respondents 2 and 3 had filed a suit in O.S.No.318 of 2017 before the District Munsif Court, Ambattur and an order of interim injunction, which came to be granted was subsequently vacated at the instance of the petitioner herein. As on date, there is no injunction infavour of the respondents 2 and 3 herein, in connection with the subject property. While that being so, the respondents 2 and 3 may not have any valid right over the property.

¶16

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), on instructions submitted that the subject property is in possession with the petitioners herein as on date and she further submitted that, based on the petitioners' complaint, a charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.78 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur.

¶17

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are intending to put up construction in the property and since the respondents 2 and 3 do not have any valid title over the property as on date, they may not be justified in raising any objections to the construction.

¶18

In view of the fact that the petitioners herein have a valid title and possession of the subject property, it would be appropriate that necessary police protection be extended to them to have a peaceful enjoyment of their property and to put up any sort of construction, if they may so desire.

¶19

In this background, the petitioners herein are granted liberty to approach the first respondent herein, if they apprehend threat/obstruction from the respondent 2 and 3 while putting up the construction in the subject property. On receipt

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

of such application, the first respondent shall pass an order, extending police protection to the petitioners herein. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of two days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

With the above observations, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶24

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
dh
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
V-7, Nolambur Police Station,
Chennai - 600 095.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+2cc to Mr.S.RAJASEKAR, Advocate, S.R.No. 19142
Crl.O.P.No.4310 of 2018
RSY(CO)
TR(19/03/2018)

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Dr.C.Mohan, M/a 69 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.C.Mohan, M/a 69 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Vijayalakshmi, Aged 65 Years Vs the Commissioner of Police

Jothi, F/a 45 Yrs, Vs the Commissioner of Police

Chitra, F/a 32 Yrs, Vs the Commissioner of Police

Saravanan, Age 34 Years, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Palepalli Sri Gangamman Alaya Vs State Rep. by

M.Natarajan, Vs the District Collector