Disposed

A.Rajappan, Aged 58 Years, v. State Rep. by

Madras HC16 Mar 2021CRL OP/27401/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought police protection under Section 482 CrPC. The Court noted a final civil decree in his favor. It directed the police to enquire, instruct the opposing party to stop threats, and provide protection if interference persists.

What did the court decide?

Directed police to enquire, order 2nd respondent to cease threats, and provide police protection if interference continues.

A.Rajappan, Aged 58 Years, Vs State Rep. by — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.03.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.27401 of 2017

¶6

A.Rajappan
Power Agent of
(1) A.Sekar
(2) S.Vijaya .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
T-5, Thiruverkadu Police Station,
Thiruverkadu.
2. S.Anandan
Chairman,
Panayathamman Charitable Trust,
No.7, Vedehapureeswarar Thirukoil
Salai, Thiruverkadu
Poonamallee Taluk. .. Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to direct the respondent police to give necessary
police protection to the petitioner and his associates for carry
out the development work in the site of the properties in
S.No.222/32 and 222/33 at Thiruverkadu Village, Thiruvallur
District on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated
30.11.2017.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Arun Kumar For Respondent No.1 : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent No.2 : Mr.C.Sadhasivam ORDER

¶8

This petition has been filed seeking for police protection to the petitioner in order to enable the petitioner to carry on with the development activities in the subject property.

¶9

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

¶10

2.The case of the petitioner is that he is the power agent of the owners of the subject property. Initially, the 2^nd respondent Trust was claiming a right over the subject property and a suit came to be filed in O.S.No.465 of 2014 before the learned Principal District Munsif at Poonamallee against the principals of the petitioner, seeking for relief for permanent injunction. This suit was dismissed for default on 02.06.2017.

¶11

3.Thereafter an attempt was made by the 2^nd respondent and others to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property and hence the principals represented by the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.427 of 2016 before the Principal District Munsif, Poonmallee, seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 28.07.2017. According to the petitioner, the decree has become final.

¶12

4.The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of decree passed in favour of the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent was continuing to exert threat and interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property. Hence, a complaint came to be given before the respondent police seeking for police protection. A CSR receipt was also issued in CSR No.308 of 2017. Thereafter, no action was taken. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

¶13

5.Heard Mr.C.Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent and Mr.C.Sadhasivam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent.

¶14

6.In the considered view of this Court, there is a decree in favour of the petitioner passed by a competent civil court in OS.No.427 of 2016. This decree is said to have become final. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent who is bound by the decree cannot take law into their own hands and cause threat to the petitioner.

¶15

7.In view of the above, the 1^st respondent is directed to call the parties for an enquiry and specifically instruct the 2^nd respondent and his men and agent not to cause any threat to the petitioner and not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the subject property. The 2^nd respondent is directed to workout his remedy in the manner known to law. If in spite of such instructions given by the 1^st respondent, the 2^nd respondent indulges in causing any threat or interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the subject property, action shall be taken immediately in accordance with law. If required police protection shall also be given to the petitioner. The petitioner

¶16

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

¶17

is directed to make a fresh representation to the 1^st respondent along with a copy of this order.

¶18

8.This criminal original petition is disposed of with the above directions.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

To
1. The Inspector of Police,
T-5, Thiruverkadu Police Station,
Thiruverkadu.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+2cc to Mr.N.Damodaran, Advocate SR.NO..16851
+2cc to Mr.C.Arun Kumar, Advocate SR.NO..17050
AKM/15.04.21/3P-7C/
Crl.O.P.No.27401 of 2017
16.03.2021

¶23

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

A.Rajappan, Aged 58 Years, v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Rajappan, Aged 58 Years, v. State Rep. by

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

A.G.Narasimhan Vs The Superintendent of Police

G.Somu Vs State Rep by

Murugaiyan Vs State Rep.by

Mohan Vs State Rep.by Its

R.Arjun Vs State Rep.by

T.K.Nawaz, Vs the Union of India Rep by