Dismissed

R.Mathanagopal v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC10 Nov 2023CRL OP/9448/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking police protection for a life and property dispute. The court found the petitioner repeatedly filed similar petitions and fabricated false incidents, labeling him an addict to litigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to pay Rs. 25,000/- as costs to the Taluk Legal Services Authority, Valparai, within four weeks.

R.Mathanagopal Vs the Superintendent of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.9448 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated:10.11.2023

¶4

Coram:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.9448 of 2023

R.Mathanagopal

.. Petitioner

/versus/

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

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police Valparai Police Station, Valparai, Coimbatore District.

3.Rajendran

4.Samikannu

5.Jayaraj

6.Kamaraj

¶16

7.Udayakumar

¶17

8.Sivabackiyam

¶18

1/6

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

Crl.O.P.No.9448 of 2023

9.Shanthi

10.Vijayakumari

11.Devi

12.Chitra

13.Chellammal

14.Chithiraikani

15.Saroja

16.Lakshmi

17.Boopathi 18.Selvamani

¶30

19.Ranjani 20.Jaya 21.Daisy 22.Thilagarani

23.Thanush Krishnan

.. Respondents

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.9448 of 2023

¶36

Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner to the life and to manage his tea estate in the name of K.G.R.Estate situated at Kurangumudi, Valparai by considering the petitioner's representation dated 03.03.2023.

¶37

For Petitioner :Mr.K.Nagendra Prasad

¶38

For Respondents :Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 and R2

¶39

Mr.C.Gunasekaran for R3 to R23

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

It is fight between the father and son regarding enjoyment of the property. Alleging that there is a life threat at the hands of the private respondents, the petition is filed seeking police protection.

¶42

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 23

¶43

submits that the title dispute regarding property is pending before the

¶44

3/6

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

Crl.O.P.No.9448 of 2023

¶47

District Court, Coimbatore and the allegation that the petitioner is threatening, is an imaginary allegation.

¶48

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State submits that for the very same relief, the petitioner has been repeatedly filing the petition and the Court has twice allowed his petition viz., (i) Crl.O.P.No.214 of 2013, dated 06.1.2023, (ii) Crl.O.P.No.10380 of 2021, dated 24.06.2021 directing the police to provide protection and there is no adverse incident reported.

¶49

This Court finds that the petitioner has become an addict to the litigation and filing petitions repeatedly for the very same relief. Inspite of directing the police to provide protection to him, though there was no reason to apprehend that his life is in danger, by making some invented false imaginary incident he has come before this Court.

¶50

4/6

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

Crl.O.P.No.9448 of 2023

¶53

Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- payable to the Taluk Legal Services Authority, Valparai, within a period of four weeks from today.

¶54

10.11.2023

¶55

Index:yes/no Internet:Yes/no Neutral citation:yes/no ari To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. 2.The Inspector of Police Valparai Police Station, Valparai, Coimbatore District. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶56

5/6

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

Crl.O.P.No.9448 of 2023

¶59

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

¶60

ari

¶61

Crl.O.P.No.9448 of 2023

¶62

10.11.2023

¶63

6/6

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Mathanagopal v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Mathanagopal 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

Dhanalakshmi Vs T.v.Sathyanarayanan

Sheejamary Vs Inspector of Police

Kamesh Mathew Vs the State Rep by Its

G.Manikandan Vs the Commissioner of Police

D.Manivannan Vs the State Rep by, Its

Senthamarai Vs the State Rep by Its