Disposed

Veerasekar v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC3 Jun 2021CRL OP(MD)/7119/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought police protection against alleged boundary removal by the third respondent. The court directed the first respondent to consider the petition and pass orders on merits within one month before disposing of this petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits within one month.

Veerasekar Vs The Superintendent of Police — Madras HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7119 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.06.2021 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AA.NAKKIRAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7119 of 2021

Veerasekar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District.

¶8

2.The Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District.

¶9

3.A.Selvi ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the second respondent herein to provide necessary police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family based on the petitioner's representation dated 28.04.2021.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthilkumar For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.M.Muthumanickkam, Government Advocate(Crl.side)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner and his family members based on his representation dated 28.04.2021.

¶14

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent is attempting to remove the boundary stones and fencing of the petitioner's land. In this regard, the petitioner sent a representation, dated 28.04.2021 to the first and second respondents seeking police protection. However, no action has been taken. Hence, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking the aforesaid relief.

¶15

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the first respondent police is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.04.2021 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

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

¶18

1/2

¶19

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7119 of 2021

¶20

5.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶24

kmm

¶25

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned.

¶26

¶27

1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District.

¶28

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶29

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7119 of 2021

¶30

03.06.2021 CN(15.06.2021) 2P 4C

¶31

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

¶32

2/2

Veerasekar v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerasekar v. The Superintendent 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

P.Rajendran Vs R.M.K.R.Durairaj (Died)

Chinnu Vs The Superintendent of Police

Murugan.K Vs the City Commissioner of Police

N.Ramachandran Vs The Superintendent of Police

B.Ananthamuruga Vs The Superintendent of Police

Periyasamy.C Vs the Superintendent of Police