Dismissed¶29

S.S.Engineering Works v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC1 Sept 2025WP/17340/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection; writ of mandamus; Article 226; blanket order of police protection refused; remedy is civil suit for permanent injunction; trespass; matrimonial dispute; divorce petition pending; representation dated 21.11.2024; Superintendent of Police Coimbatore Rural; Inspector of Police Annur Police Station; M/s.S.S.Engineering Works; P.R.Muralidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar (2006) 4 SCC 501; scope of writ for police protection limited to rights declared by civil court decree or order; writ petition dismissed, no costs; Madras High Court; N. Sathish Kumar, J.; 01.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

A blanket order of police protection cannot be granted; if someone illegally trespasses into the petitioner's property, the petitioner must approach the civil court for permanent injunction. ¶22

S.S.Engineering Works Vs the Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 1 and 2 (police authorities) can be directed by a writ of mandamus under Article 226 to provide police protection to the petitioner's company on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 21.11.2024, in the backdrop of a matrimonial dispute with the third respondent.

¶13

Court's answer

A blanket order of police protection cannot be granted; if someone illegally trespasses into the petitioner's property, the petitioner must approach the civil court for permanent injunction.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

On the above view, and relying on P.R.Muralidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar, (2006) 4 SCC 501, the writ petition seeking police protection is dismissed with no costs.

¶29

Key takeaways

If there is any immediate threat, disturbance, interference in running the petitioner's company or any trespass into the property, it is open to the petitioner to file a complaint and the police can act on such complaints.obiter¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Sathish Kumar, J.) dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore Rural and the Inspector of Police, Annur Police Station to provide police protection to the petitioner company M/s.S.S.Engineering Works on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 21.11.2024, in a background of matrimonial dispute with the third respondent (marriage on 14.04.2005; divorce petition pending). Held: a blanket order of police protection cannot be granted; where illegal trespass into property is alleged, the remedy is to approach the civil court for permanent injunction, relying on P.R.Muralidharan and others v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and others, (2006) 4 SCC 501, wherein the Supreme Court held that a writ for 'police protection' has limited scope and extends only to protection of rights declared by a decree or order of a civil court. The petitioner remains free to file a complaint with the police in respect of any immediate threat, disturbance, interference or trespass, and the police can act on such complaints. Petition dismissed; no costs.

¶1

W.P.No.17340 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.09.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.Crl.No.17340 of 2025

¶7

M/s.S.S.Engineering Works Rep by its Proprietor R.Sampath Kumar No.5/229-B, Kovai Road, Kariyampalayam Post Annur, Coimbatore District

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

1.The Superintendent of Police Coimbatore Rural, Coimbatore

¶11

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

¶12

3.S.Hemalatha .. Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner's company namely M/s.S.S.Engineering Works, situated at No.5/229-B, Kovai Road, Kariyampalayam Post, Annur, Coimbatore Districton the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 21.11.2024.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Krishnamoorthy For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan for R1 & R2 Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.17340 of 2025

¶18

The writ petition has been filed seeking to direct the respondents 1 and

¶19

2 to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner's company namely M/s.S.S.Engineering Works, situated at No.5/229-B, Kovai Road, Kariyampalayam Post, Annur, Coimbatore Districton the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 21.11.2024.

¶20

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and the third respondent married on 14.04.2005 and now, divorce petition is filed and the same is pending. The third respondent entering the petitioner's company and using filthy languages and stopping the work. Hence, seeks for police protection.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials placed on record.

¶22

At the outset, this Court is unable to countenance the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. If someone illegally trespasses into the petitioner's property, it is for the petitioner to approach the civil court for permanent injunction. A blanket order of police protection cannot be granted. Page 2 of 4

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.17340 of 2025

¶25

In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of P.R.Muralidharan

¶26

and others Vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and others reported

¶27

in (2006) 4 SCC 501 has held that what are all the matters for which police protection can be granted. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:

¶28

“...19. A writ for “police protection” so-called, has only a limited scope, as, when the court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights have not been determined either finally by the civil court or, at least at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order.”

¶29

In view of the above, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. It

¶30

is needless to state in any event, if there is any immediate threat, disturbance, interference in running the petitioner's company or any trespass into the property, it is well open to petitioner to file a complaint and the police can very well act on such complaints.

¶31

01.09.2025

¶32

dhk Index :Yes/No

¶33

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶34

dhk

¶35

Page 3 of 4

¶36

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