Dismissed¶21

K.Munusamy v. The State represented by

Madras HC13 Aug 2025WP/18936/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge Madras High Court order dated 13.08.2025 dismissing W.P.No.18936 of 2022 (petitioner K.Munusamy; State/Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Town Police Station and K.Perumal, Senthilnathan, Venkatesh as respondents) as infructuous on the petitioner's own counsel's submission. Original prayer: police protection via mandamus under Article 226 for land measurement and laying corner stone/boundary fencing by Tahsildar, Krishnagiri. No legal question adjudicated; no holdings, ratios, case citations or monetary amounts.

What the court decided

AI extract

K.Munusamy Vs The State represented by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.18936 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 13.08.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.18936 of 2022

K.Munusamy

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State represented by Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Town Police Station, Krishnagiri.

¶11

2.K.Perumal

3.Senthilnathan

4.Venkatesh

... Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent Police to provide police protection to the petitioner and his family members while measuring the land and laying the corner stone to put up the boundary fencing to the petitioner's property by the Tahsildar, Krishnagiri.

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.18936 of 2022

¶19

For Petitioner	:	Mr.S.Arokia Maniraj
For R1	:	Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan,
		Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 to R4	:	Mr.V.Regunathan

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This writ petition is filed for police protection to put up boundary fencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through video conferencing would submit that the matter has become infructuous. Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

¶22

13.08.2025

¶23

mkn

¶24

Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.18936 of 2022

¶28

¶29

1.The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Town Police Station, Krishnagiri.

¶30

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶31

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.18936 of 2022

¶35

mkn

¶36

W.P.No.18936 of 2022

¶37

13.08.2025

¶38

Page 4 of 4

¶39

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

K.Munusamy v. The State represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

K.Munusamy v. The State represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Revathy Vs The secretary

Kalpana Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Mohankumar Vs The Director General of police

Srinivasan Vs State rep by superintendent of Police

K.Kathiravan Vs the Commissioner

S.Rajeshwari Vs Assistant Commissioner of Police