Disposed¶31

Gopinath v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC3 Mar 2025CRL OP(MD)/3913/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection request; Section 528 BNSS; Crl.O.P(MD)No.3913 of 2025; Madurai Bench Madras High Court; Justice P. Dhanabal; Gopinath; Sanarpatti Police Station Dindigul; civil dispute with fifth respondent Natarajan; Ragalapuram Village S.No.643/2A-2C; representation dated 22.02.2025; enquiry to be completed within one week; disposed without notice to private respondents.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent (Inspector of Police, Sanarpatti Police Station) to complete the enquiry within a period of one week from the date of the order, after affording opportunities to both parties in accordance with law; petition disposed of with this direction. ¶31

Gopinath Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 1 and 2 should give police protection to the petitioner and his representatives by considering the petitioner's representation dated 22.02.2025, in accordance with law (petition filed under Section 528 BNSS).

¶15

Court's answer

As the second respondent had already issued summons to the private respondents to conduct an enquiry and fixed a date, the Court directed the second respondent to complete the enquiry within a period of one week from the date of the order.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The enquiry direction is to be carried out after affording opportunities to both the parties, in accordance with law.

¶30

Key takeaways

Because of the limited scope of the prayer, the Court passed the order without even issuing notice to the private respondents.ratio¶25
With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of; direct police protection as such was not ordered.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gopinath v. State of Tamil Nadu (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, 03.03.2025, Justice P. Dhanabal), Crl.O.P(MD)No.3913 of 2025: Petition under Section 528 of BNSS seeking police protection for the petitioner and his representatives, citing his representation dated 22.02.2025 which was not acted upon, amid a pending civil dispute with the fifth respondent (Natarajan) over property in S.No.(*)643/2A, 643/2B, 643/2C, Ragalapuram Village, Dindigul East Taluk. As the respondent police had already summoned the private respondents and fixed an enquiry date, the Court directed the Inspector of Police, Sanarpatti Police Station to complete the enquiry within one week from the date of the order, affording opportunities to both parties in accordance with law, and disposed of the petition without issuing notice to the private respondents, considering the limited scope of the prayer. Survey numbers amended vide order dated 04.04.2025 in CRL MP(MD).No.4563 of 2025.

¶1

Crl.O.P(MD)No.3913 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

¶6

Crl.O.P(MD)No.3913 of 2025

Gopinath

... Petitioner

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, Sanarpatti Police Station, Dindigul.

¶12

Raaja @ Chellamuthu

¶13

Samikannu

¶14

Natarajan ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Criminal Original petitions have been filed under Section 528 of BNSS to pass an order of direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to give police protection for the petitioner and his representatives by considering the petitioners representation dated 22.02.2025 and in accordance with law.

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

Crl.O.P(MD)No.3913 of 2025

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Azhagesh,

¶20

For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to give police protection for the petitioner and his representatives by considering the petitioner's representation dated 22.02.2025.

¶23

2.According to the petitioner, there is a civil dispute pending between the petitioner and the fifth respondent in respect of the property in S.No. (*)643/2A, 643/2B, 643/2C, situated at Ragalapuram Village, Dindigul East Taluk. The fifth respondent is wrongly claiming right over the property and causing disturbance to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner sent the representation, dated 22.02.2025, but the same has not been considered. Hence this petition has been filed.

¶24

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that based on the petitioner's representation, the respondent police issued summons to the private respondents and fixed the date for enquiry. The respondent police will complete the enquiry within a period of one week.

¶25

4.Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for in this petition, this Court, without even issuing notice to the private respondents, is inclined to pass order.

¶26

2/4

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.O.P(MD)No.3913 of 2025

¶29

5.Since the second respondent has issued summons to the private respondents to conduct enquiry and fixed a date, the second respondent is directed to complete the enquiry within a period of one week from the date of this order,

¶30

after affording opportunities to both the parties, in accordance with law.

¶31

6.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

03/03/2025

¶34

(*)Amended as per the order dated 04.04.2025 made in CRL MP(MD).No.4563 of 2025 in CRL OP(MD).No 3913 of 2025.

¶35

Sd/-