Dismissed

G.Velugonda Reddy v. State Rep.by

Madras HC28 Mar 2022CRL OP/22940/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought police protection under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court held that since a decree for permanent injunction already exists in a civil suit favoring the petitioner, the issue should be addressed by seeking a continuation order from the competent civil court rather than invoking criminal court discretion.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioner to seek appropriate orders from the civil court instead of invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. Directing District Munsif to pass appropriate orders.

G.Velugonda Reddy Vs State Rep.by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 28.03.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.22940 of 2019

¶6

G.Velugonda Reddy,

¶7

S/o. Late Sri G.Rami Reddy

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

State Represented by The Superintendent of Police, Chengalpet, Chengalpet Division, Kancheepuram District.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, Chengalpet Town Police Station, Chengalpet, Kancheepuram District.

¶12

Mr.D.Sindhu S/o. Duraisamy

¶13

Mr.D.Kanniyappan S/o. Duraisamy

¶14

5.Mr.Thiagarajan

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Criminal Original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, prayed to issue suitable directions to the first and second Respondents to provide Police Protection to the Petitioner.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Subba Reddy

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 & R2

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to issue suitable directions to the first and second Respondents to provide Police Protection to the Petitioner.

¶22

Mr.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner had invited the attention of this Court to the Order of this Court dated 12.11.2021 passed in this Criminal Original Petition which was filed in the year 2019 and had been pending till date. As per the Order of this Court, the Petitioner herein had purchased the property from the Respondents 3 to 5 through proper registered sale deed. Subsequent to the sale, the Respondents 3 to 5 had alleged to have entered into a sale agreement with one A.Rajasekaran. On the strength of the alleged sale agreement, they had entered into peaceful possession of the land measuring 4 Acres and 48 Cents situated at Anumanthabutheri Village, Chengalpet Town and District.

¶23

In continuation of the said sale deed and subsequent fraudulent transaction of the sale agreement entered into by the erstwhile vendor of the Petitioner, the Petitioner had sought injunction by filing a Suit in O.S.No.39 of 2012 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Chengalpet. After due notice on the erstwhile vendor and by way of trial, the learned District Munsif, Chengalpet had granted a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Petitioner.

¶24

When the Petitioner had been granted a decree by a Competent Civil Court in his favour and that had not been agitated by the erstwhile vendor/Respondents 3 to 5 by way of Appeal the decree in favour of the Petitioner holds good till date. Therefore, the Petitioner need not seek indulgence of this Court by adverting to the discretion under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by filing this petition.

¶25

The learned counsel for the Petitioner is directed to seek appropriate orders from the competent civil Court at Chengalpet by filing appropriate petition before the learned District Munsif, Chengalpet.

¶26

The District Munsif, Chengalpet is directed to pass appropriate orders from the date of filing of the petition seeking police protection in continuation of the decree for permanent injunction before the learned District Munsif, Chengalpet.

¶27

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

¶28

With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

¶29

s/dAssistant Registrar

¶30

True Copy

¶31

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶32

¶33

To.

¶34

The District Munsif Chengalpet. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Chengalpet, Chengalpet Division, Kancheepuram District.

¶35

The Inspector of Police, Chengalpet Town Police Station, Chengalpet, Kancheepuram District. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai. +1 CC to Mr.P.Subba Reddy, Advocate sr 21438 +3 Ccs to Mr.P.Subba Reddy, Advocate sr 20512.

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.22940 of 2019

¶37

SKM(CO) SP(13/04/2022)

¶38

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

G.Velugonda Reddy v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Velugonda Reddy 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

M.N. Ramalingam Vs Latha Rani

M.N. Ramalingam Vs Dr. Sanjay Vijayaraj

Ganesh @ Purushothaman Vs State Rep.by

M.Ilangovan Vs the State Rep by

P.Asirvatham Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Jeyandran Vs the Inspector of Police