Dismissed¶30

Chinnasamy v. State Rep by, the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC24 Feb 2025CRL OP/1618/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection direction refused; petition under Section 528 BNSS dismissed; juice factory Survey No.578/4; civil dispute among family members in O.S.No.130 of 2024, Sub Court Palakkodu; Crime No.271 of 2024 under Sections 296(B), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2) BNS 2023 closed as mistake of fact on 13.09.2024; remedy lies before Civil Court; Madras High Court; Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan; decided 24.02.2025; Dharmapuri; Karimangalam; Palacode.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner ought to have approached the Civil Court for appropriate remedy, and the direction sought for in this petition (police protection) cannot be granted by this Court. ¶26

Chinnasamy Vs State Rep by, the Superintendent of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.1618 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 24.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.1618 of 2025

Chinnasamy

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The State Represented by:

¶11

1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the District Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District.

¶12

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palacode,

¶13

Dharmapuri District.

¶14

3.The Inspector of Police, Karimangalam Police Station, Karimangalam, Dharmapuri District.

¶15

4.Venkatachalam

¶16

.. Respondents

¶17

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,

¶18

praying to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to provide adequate police protection for the petitioner to resume operations of his juice factory located in Survey No.578/4.

¶19

1/4

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.1618 of 2025

¶22

For Petitioner : M/s.D.Mario Johnson For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R4 : No appearance

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This petition has been filed seeking police protection for the petitioner to resume operation of the juice shop.

¶25

2.It is seen that a civil dispute is pending among the family members with regard to the subject property in O.S.No.130 of 2024 on the file of the Sub Court Palakkodu. That apart, there is already a dispute between the petitioner and his elder brother, namely the 4^th respondent herein. Further, a criminal case has been registered in Crime No.271 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 296(B), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023. However, the same was closed as mistake of fact on 13.09.2024 by the 3^rd respondent.

¶26

3.Therefore, the petitioner ought to have approached the Civil Court for appropriate remedy and the direction sought for in this petition cannot be granted by this Court.

¶27

2/4

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.1618 of 2025

¶30

4.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶31

24.02.2025

¶32

krk Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No