Dismissed

P.Villingiri v. State Rep by

Madras HC15 Jun 2022CRL OP/13545/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prohibiting police harassment and requesting police protection based on a rival civil claim. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that blanket police protection is inappropriate where the dispute is purely civil and unadjudicated at an interlocutory stage.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition seeking directions against police harassment is dismissed.

P.Villingiri Vs State Rep by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.06.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.13545 of 2022

P.Villingiri

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Thudiyalur Police Station, Thudiyalur, Coimbatore. ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., pleased to direct the respondent police not to harass the petitioner.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Deivasigamani

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to direct the respondent police not to harass the petitioner on the complaint given by the petitioner to give police protection.

¶15

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondent police.

¶16

3. It is seen that a suit has been filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.954 of 2020 on the file IIIrd Additional District Munsif Judge, Coimbatore and there is rival claim between the parties. If the respondent police finds that it is purely a civil dispute, there is no business for the police to harass the petitioner.

¶17

4. At the outset, a blanket police protection cannot be granted particularly, when there is rivalry claim by the other

¶18

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

¶19

side. The practice of granting the blanket police protection leads to serious consequences. In this aspect, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ''PR.Muralidharan and others Vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar'' reported in 2006 4 SCC as held as follows:

¶20

''...19.A Writ for ''Police Protection“ socalled, has only a limited scope, as when the Court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil Court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights have not been determined either finally by the civil Court or, at least at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order.''

¶21

In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

rgi/ham

¶27

¶28

The III Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.

¶29

The Inspector of Police, Thudiyalur Police Station, Thudiyalur, Coimbatore.

¶30

The Public Prosecutor,

¶31

Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶32

+1cc to Mr.C.Deivasigamani, Advocate, S.R.No.38794

¶33

Crl.O.P.No.13545 of 2022

¶34

RSV(CO) UMA(28/06/2022)

¶35

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

P.Villingiri v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Villingiri 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaburammal Vs Inspector of Police

G.Malika Vs the Superintendent of Police

V.Dorai Vs Commissioner of Police

V.Teenu Vs The district Superintendent of Police

P.Geethajali Vs State Rep by

V.Sathya Vs the Commissioner of Police