Allowed

P.Tiburcius v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC12 Sept 2024CRL OP(MD)/15400/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought protection order under Section 528 of BNSS due to civil dispute and property interference. Court directed petitioner to submit fresh representation to the police, who must then enquire and act within two weeks. Petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to give fresh representation; upon receipt, second respondent must issue notice, conduct enquiry, and pass orders within two weeks.

P.Tiburcius Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15400 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 12.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15400 of 2024

¶7

P.Tiburcius : Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, Colachel Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

¶11

3.Sahaya Asin

¶12

4.Vinu Pinto : Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner based on the petitioner's representation dated 16.08.2024.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.A.Ajmalkhan, For Respondents : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R1 & R2.

¶15

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15400 of 2024

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 528 of BNSS., seeking orders, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner based on the petitioner's representation dated 16.08.2024.

¶19

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there existed civil dispute between the petitioner and the father of the private respondents; that on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, FIR came to be registered against one Emerson father of the private respondents and that the suit filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed and he has preferred an appeal and the same is pending and that when the petitioner was attempting to renew the building, the private respondents have been interfering with the same.

¶20

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State would submit that so far, they have not received any representation from the petitioner.

¶21

But the petitioner's counsel would submit that they have already enclosed the copy of the Acknowledgement card.

¶22

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15400 of 2024

¶24

Considering the above, the petitioner is directed to give fresh

¶25

representation to the second respondent and on receipt of the same, the second respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner as well as the private respondents and conduct enquiry and pass orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner.

¶26

6.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition stands

¶27

allowed.

¶28

12.09.2024

¶29

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No das

¶30

¶31

1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District.

¶32

2.The Inspector of Police, Colachel Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

¶33

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

¶34

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15400 of 2024

¶36

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

¶37

das

¶38

Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15400 of 2024

¶39

Dated: 12.09.2024

¶40

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.Tiburcius v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Tiburcius v. The State of Tamilnadu

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

Jayaraj Vs The Superintendent of Police

Sneka Vs The Inspector of Police

B.Sivasankar Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Kishore Pandian Vs The Superintendent of Police

Murugan Vs The District Collector

M.Subramaniyan Vs The Superintendent of Police