Disposed

Periyasamy.C v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC3 Jun 2021WP(MD)/9575/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the police authorities to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.04.2021 seeking protection against threats from a property dispute within four weeks, disposing of the writ petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Direction to police respondents to consider petitioner's representation regarding protection threats within four weeks following due process of law.

Periyasamy.C Vs the Superintendent of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.9575 of 2021

¶2

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

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN W.P.(MD)No.9575 of 2021

C.Periyasamy

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Karur District,

¶8

Karur.

¶9

2.The Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grab Wing, District Crime Branch, Karur District.

¶10

3.K.Karunanithi ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and second respondents to give necessary police protection to the petitioner and his family members for life and limb on the basis of the representation given by the petitioner, dated 08.04.2021.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gokulraj For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the the first and second respondents to give necessary police protection to the petitioner and his family members for life and limb on the basis of the representation given by the petitioner, dated 08.04.2021.

¶15

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the third respondent are friends and the petitioner had executed a sale deed in favour of one Jeyachandran and Duraisamy, who are the close relative of the third respondent. Due to the difference of opinion between the petitioner and the third respondent, the third respondent refused to give the sale consideration. The third respondent is neither a purchaser nor party to the suit and without any right over the property, he is threatening the petitioner and his family members and attacked him and also trying to squat the petitioner's property. Hence, the petitioner made a representation on 08.04.2021 to the first respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that so far the respondents did not consider his representation. Hence, the

¶16

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

¶17

1/2

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.9575 of 2021

¶19

petitioner filed a present petition before this Court seeking police protection.

¶20

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, would submit that the representation of the petitioner, dated 08.04.2021 will be considered by the respondents 1 and 2.

¶21

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶22

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent police are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 08.04.2021 by following the due process of law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

6.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶24

¶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

To:-

¶27

1.The Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur.

¶28

2.The Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grab Wing, District Crime Branch, Karur District.

¶29

+1 CC to M/s.S.GOKULRAJ, Advocate ( SR-18720[F] dated 03/06/2021 )

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.9575 of 2021 03.06.2021

¶31

KK(15.06.2021) 2P 4C

¶32

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

¶33

2/2

Periyasamy.C v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Periyasamy.C 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

Veerasekar Vs The Superintendent of Police