Dismissed

Vijayakumar G Dhas v. The Director General of Police

Madras HC14 Feb 2019WP/2554/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ mandamus directing police to consider his complaint for protection against the 5th respondent. The Court held that since an injunction exists and the civil suit is pending, the petitioner must seek protection via the civil court or through Section 151 Cr.P.C., not via this writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to approach the Court below for appropriate relief via petition under Section 151 Cr.P.C. or appropriate petition.

Vijayakumar G Dhas Vs The Director General of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 14.02.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

W.P.No.2554 of 2019

¶6

Mr.Vijayakumar G Dhas ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore,
Chennai.
2.The Principal Secretary,
Home Department,
Secretariat,
For St George,
Chennai.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
No.132, E.V.K.Sampath Road,
Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
4.The Inspector of Police (Law and Order)
T-12, Poonamallee Police Station,
Ambathur,
Chennai.
5.C.Daniel Praveen Raj. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, to
direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's
representation dated 09.11.2018 and to take appropriate action
against the 4 th respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sesubalan Raja
For respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz,
Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶7

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

¶8

ORDER

¶9

This Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.11.2018 and to take appropriate action against the 4^th respondent.

¶10

2.It is seen from records that the petitioner has already filed O.S.No.140 of 2016 before the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee as against the 5^th respondent in which he has also obtained interim order of status quo. Therefore, this Court cannot direct the police official to consider the representation sent by the petitioner.

¶11

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in spite of the interim order passed, the 5^th respondent is continuously interfering the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and he is causing threat to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner gave a complaint to the respondent police seeking for police protection. Since the same was not considered, this petition has been filed seeking for appropriate direction.

¶12

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the respondent police cannot give police protection in a case of this nature, since, admittedly, the suit is pending before the Court below.

¶13

5.Heard Mr.P.Sesubalan Raja learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent police.

¶14

6.The petitioner in this case has admittedly obtained an order of injunction against the 5^th respondent. The 5^th respondent is continuously interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. The petitioner has to file an appropriate petition before the Court below and initiate contempt proceedings. It is also possible for the petitioner to seek for police protection before the Court below, by filing an appropriate petition under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner cannot maintain an independent petition before this Court seeking for police protection. The police cannot interfere in this case, unless, a specific direction is given by a competent Civil Court.

¶15

In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is

¶16

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

¶17

disposed of, by giving liberty to the petitioner to workout his remedy before the Court below in the manner indicated herein above.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vsn
To
1.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore,Chennai.
2.The Principal Secretary,
Home Department,Secretariat,
For St George, Chennai.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
No.132, E.V.K.Sampath Road,
Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
4.The Inspector of Police (Law and Order)
T-12, Poonamallee Police Station,
Ambathur,Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1 cc to Mr.P.Sesubalan, Advocate Sr.No.14731
W.P.No.2554 of 2019
CSL/18.03.2019

¶19

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

Vijayakumar G Dhas v. The Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayakumar G Dhas v. The Director General of Police

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

Thulasi @ Ayyappan Vs State Rep. by

Thulasi @ Ayyappan Vs State Rep. by

A.Kandasamy Vs State of Rep. by

Shanthi Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Manikandan @ C.D.Mani Vs State by

Rafi Ahmed Vs the State through