IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.06.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN Crl.O.P.No.11042 of 2017
1. B.Rathinam
2. B.Ethiraj ... Petitioners Vs
1. The Superintendent of Police Tirupur District, Tirupur.
2. The Inspector of Police Kudimangalam Police Station, Udumalpet Taluk, Tirupur District.
3. P.Kuppusamy ... Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the 2nd respondent police to give protection to the petitioners, their workmen and servants, in respect of the property comprised in S.No.423/3A, measuring an extent of 1.85.0 hectares and an extent of 2 cents comprised in S.No.409/2C and an extent of 10 cents comprised in S.No.408/C2, situated at Vahathozhuvu Village, Udumalpet Taluk, Tirupur District, belonging to the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Thangavel For respondent : Mr.C.Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor (For RR1 & 2) ORDER The present criminal original petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to give protection to the petitioner, his workmen and servants, in respect of the property comprised in S.No.423/3A, measuring an extent of 1.85.0 hectares and an extent of 2 cents comprised in S.No.409/2C and an extent of 10 cents comprised in S.No.408/C2 situated at Vahathozhuvu Village, Udumalpet Taluk, Tirupur District.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner's father is the owner of the property comprised in S.No.423/3A measuring an extent of 1.85.0 hectares by virtue of a partition deed dated 17.06.1968 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The 2nd petitioner's father died on 20.01.2000, leaving behind the 2nd petitioner and his mother, who is the first petitioner herein as the legal representatives.
3. Later on 22.12.2010, the 2nd petitioner and his mother entered into an agreement of sale with the 3rd respondent in respect of the properties comprised in S.No.423/3A, measuring an extent of 1.85.0 hectares and an extent of 2 cents comprised in S.No.409/2C and an extent of 10 cents comprised in S.No.408/C2, for a sale consideration of 3,82,000/-. The petitioners submitted that though they were ready to perform the part of the sale agreement, the third respondent, instead of paying the balance amount , got the sale deed in his favour and filed a suit in O.S.No.149 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupur, praying for specific performance and also for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
4. It is also the case of the petitioners that the third respondent filed an application in I.A.No.489 of 2011 praying for temporary injunction. In the said application, the Court passed an order directing the petitioners not to alienate or encumber the suit property and the relief of permanent injunction was not granted. The third respondent also made an attempt to trespass into our property. Therefore, the petitioners lodged a complaint dated 01.05.2011 before the Negammam Police Station and since the third respondent gave an undertaking that he would work out his remedy before the civil court, the complaint was closed. Later the suit in O.S.No.149 of 2011 was dismissed for default. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.546 of 2011 on the file of District Munsif, Udumalpet against the third respondent for permanent injunction and also filed an application in I.A.No.2225 of 2011 for an interim injunction. In the meantime, the suit in O.S.No.149 of 2011 was restored to file and was decreed in part. The suit in O.S.No.546, filed by the petitioners, was decreed as prayed for and no further steps were taken by the third respondent to set aside the decree. As against the dismissal of the suit in respect of the relief of permanent injunction, the third respondent filed an appeal before this Court in A.S.No.225 of 2014 and the petitioners also filed an appeal in A.S.No.82 of 2014 before this court and they are pending disposal. While so, on 12.01.2017, the petitioners' workers were doing agricultural operations in their property, the third respondent and his son-in-law came and shouted at workers by using filthy language. The petitioner gave a complaint on 27.02.2017 before the second respondent . Since no action was taken on the said complaint, the petitioners have come up with the present petition seeking a direction to the respondent to provide police protection to fence his lands.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that even after obtaining interim injunction in favour of the petitioners, the accused has been continuously giving trouble to the petitioners and hence, on the strength of interim injunction, they requested the respondent police to give police protection to fence their lands. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that in identical situation, this Court, in the case of Radhika Sri Hari and another v. Commissioner of Police reported in 2014 (2) CTC 695, has held that the petitioner in that case would be entitled to police protection as prayer for. Thus, he sought for similar direction in this petition also.
6. On the above submissions, I have heard also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the entire materials available on record.
7. In the decision reported in 2014 (2) CTC 695 - Radhika Sri Hari and another v. Commissioner of Police, in paras 7 and 8, this Court has held as follows:-
“ 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, this court considers it appropriate to refer to report of the committee constituted by the Government in G.O.(3D) No.42, Home dated 30.06.2008 towards review of the system of treating complaints relating to money and land matters and to suggest a legally acceptable methodology. The report of such committee touching upon several issues, was accepted by Government. Having done so, under G.O.Ms.No.1580 Home (POL.VII) Department dated 24.11.2008, the Director General of Police was required to circulate the report along with the 14 point guidelines annexed to such Government order to police officers/stations for appropriate adherence. Under C.No.43/CRB/CSP/2008 dated 08.12.2008, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai Sub-Urban, has caused communications to all Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners and Inspector of police for necessary action. Guideline 11 issued by the committee reads as follows:
"11. When police protection is sought for the implementation of a civil court order it should be given readily. Police should not insist on a specific court direction to give police protection."
8. What is informed above makes clear that the petitioner would be entitled to police protection as prayed for. Criminal original petition is allowed. There will be a direction to respondents to provide police protection to the petitioners for a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order towards enabling them raising fresh barbed wire fences on their property. The same will be at the cost of the petitioner. “ Hence, as per the Guideline 11 issued by the committee constituted by the Government in G.O.(3D) No.42, Home dated 30.6.2008, when police protection is sought for, for the implementation of a civil court order, it should be given readily. In the instant case also, the petitioners have obtained an interim injunction in their favour from the competent civil Court and the same is now in force. Hence, based on the said order, the petitioners are entitled to get police protection to fence their property.
9. In the result, the criminal original petition is allowed and the respondent police is directed to provide adequate police protection to the petitioners for a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to enable them to fence their property. However, the same will be at the cost of the petitioner.
14.06.2017 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No sr To
1. The Superintendent of Police Tirupur District, Tirupur.
2. The Inspector of Police Kudimangalam Police Station, Udumalpet Taluk, Tirupur District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
R.MAHADEVAN, J sr Crl.O.P.No.11042/2017 14-06-2017 http://www.judis.nic.in