Haridoss Vs State Rep by — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Haridoss Vs State Rep by — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of at the admission stage without notice to the third respondent and without any pronouncement on merits: the third respondent is to abide by the affidavit undertaking (bail condition) so long as it stands and is not varied by a competent court; property rights are left subject to any future civil court order; the petitioner may report violations of the undertaking to the respondent police (respondents 1 and 2), who are to take appropriate action immediately upon receiving such information.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 1 and 2 should be directed to provide police protection to the petitioner's life and liberty to enable him to carry on peaceful business in his shop, in view of the third respondent's alleged interference despite the affidavit of undertaking filed as a bail condition.

Court's answer

The court did not pronounce on the merits and disposed of the criminal original petition at the admission stage, without notice to the third respondent.

Ratio / Principle

So long as the affidavit of undertaking as directed by the court remains on record and is not varied by any competent court, the third respondent is liable to abide by that condition.

Key takeaways

If the parties move the civil court and it passes any order, the property rights will thereafter be dependent upon the orders of the civil court.ratio¶28
It is open to the petitioner to bring any instance of violation of the undertaking to the respondent police, and upon receiving such information the respondent police shall immediately take appropriate action.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Police protection — Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 of BNSS — petitioner alleged trespass, loss and attack by the third respondent and continued interference despite an affidavit of undertaking filed as a condition of bail (Crime No. 203 of 2023, Ss. 341, 448, 384, 506(i), 109 IPC r/w S. 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act; CMP to vary the condition already dismissed). Held: petition disposed of at the admission stage without notice to the third respondent and without pronouncing on merits; so long as the affidavit of undertaking remains on record and is not varied by any competent court, the third respondent is liable to abide by it; if the parties approach the civil court, property rights will depend on its orders; the petitioner may report any violation of the undertaking to the respondent police, who shall take appropriate action immediately upon receiving the information.

CRL OP No. 17928 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-07-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

CRL OP No. 17928 of 2026

Haridoss S/o. Perumal, Mangalamamandur Junction, Vandavasi Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

State Rep by The Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

The Inspector of Police Kilkodungalore Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

Metharamesh S/o. Kuppusamy, 375, Melmaruvathur Road, Mangalamamandur Junction, Vandavasi Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

..Respondent(s)

__________ Page1 of 4

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

CRL OP No. 17928 of 2026

PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS praying to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to provide police protection to the petitioners life and liberty for enabling him to carry peaceful business in the petitioners shop situated at Mangalam Mamandur village, Vandavasi Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

For Petitioner(s): Mr. R.Thirumoorthy For Respondent(s): Mr. R. Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) For R1 And R2.

ORDER

This Criminal Original petition is filed to direct the respondents to

give protection to the petitioner's life and liberty, enabling him to carry on peaceful business in the petitioner's shop.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner who is in possession and enjoyment of the shop. The 3nd respondent has trespassed to his shop caused loss and also attacked the petitioner. The incident was reported to the respondent police. The case in Crime No. 203 of 2023 is also registered for the alleged offences under section 341, 448, 384 506(i), 109 of IPC read with section 3 of the The Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the said case while granting bail to the accused, a condition was imposed directing the

3rd respondent/accused to file an affidavit undertaking that he would not

Page2 of 4

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

CRL OP No. 17928 of 2026

interfere in the peaceful possession of the defacto complainant’s property. Accordingly, the affidavit was also filed. Thereafter, a Criminal Miscellaneous petition was also filed to vary the condition which was also dismissed. In spite thereof, the 3^rd respondent is interfering in the peaceful possession of the property. This court is not pronouncing upon the merits of the case and as such, the criminal original petition is disposed of at the admission stage, without notice to the 3^rd respondent. So long as, affidavit of undertaking as directed by the Court is there on record and the same is not varied by any competent Court, the 3^rd respondent is liable to abide by the said condition. The parties have also not moved to the Civil court. If there is any order of the civil Court then thereafter the property rights will be dependent upon the orders of the civil court. In the interregnum, since it is stated that affidavit is filed pursuant to the direction of this court, it is the duty of the third respondent to abide by the directions. It will be open for the petitioner to bring any instance of violation of the undertaking to the respondent police and immediately upon receiving the information, the respondent police shall take appropriate action. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is disposed of.

10-07-2026

Neutral Citation: No

PBL

__________ Page3 of 4

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

CRL OP No. 17928 of 2026

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

PBL

To

The Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

The Inspector of Police Kilkodungalore Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

CRL OP No. 17928 of 2026

10-07-2026

__________ Page4 of 4

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