This petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent herein to give adequate police protection to the petitioner and her family members on the basis of the complaint dated 07.01.2016.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- for 5% monthly interest from the third respondent for the administrative reasons. The second and third respondents insisted the petitioner's husband to execute a mortgage deed in respect of his agricultural properties in favour of the second respondent. Thereafter the petitioner and her husband went to Sub-Registrar Office on 08.05.2015 to execute a mortgage deed in favour of the second respondent. But the second and third respondent, instead of mortgage deed insisted the petitioner and her husband to execute a sale deed in favour of the second respondent. Subsequently the sale agreement executed and it is in force till 07.05.2017. So far the petitioner paid Rs.15,00,000/- as interest. Now the present respondents without any right interfered the rights of the petitioner and hence the present petition has been filed for adequate police protection for the petitioner and her family members.
4.It is also admitted that a suit for specific performance and bare injunction in O.S.No.10 of 2016 was filed by the second respondent, in which the petitioner filed a counter statement and the suit is still pending.
5. Learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) for the first respondent would submit that since the matter is regarding the civil dispute between the parties, no protection can be granted. Admittedly the present petitioner and her husband registered a sale agreement in favour of second respondent and no civil suit is filed by the petitioner to set aside the sale agreement. It is also admitted that the second and third respondent has filed a suit for specific performance and also for bare injunction in O.S.No.10 of 2016 before the IV-Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli and the suit is still pending. Since the second respondent has filed a suit against the present petitioner in O.S.No.10 of 2016 and reading of the plaint in para.4 it is averred as follows:
?4.mjd;gpd;dh; thjpaplk; bkrh;]; $p.nf.Mh; Vb$d;rp]; epWtdj;jpw;fhf U:.39>00>000/-j;jpy; gFjp bjhifahf U:.30>00>000j;ij ,e;j gpujpthjp 05.11.2015k; njjpapy; thjpaplk; bgw;Wf;bfhz;L> gpujpthjpf;F Ixrp epWtdj;jhy; tHq;fg;gl;l xg;g[if fojk; kw;Wk; gpujpthjpf;Fk;> Ixrp epWtdj;jpw;Fkhd chpkk; bjhlh;ghd xg;ge;jk; mry; Mfpatw;iwa[k; gpuhJ jgrpy; brhj;ija[k;> mjpy; ,aq;fptUk; epWtdj;ija[k;> gpujpthjp thjptrk; xg;gilj;Jtpl;lhh;. mjw;F Mjuthf mnj njjpapy; gpujpthjp thjpf;F xU fojKk; bfhLj;Js;shh;. mJ Kjy; thjpahy; gpuhJ jgrpy; brhj;ija[k;> mjpy; ,aq;fptUk; bkrh;]; $p.nf.Mh;. Vb$d;rp]; epWtdj;ija[k; eph;tfpj;Jk;> mDgtpj;Jk; tUfpwhh;.?
6. According to the second respondent, the possession was handed over to the second respondent, as per the plaint filed by the second respondent in O.S.No.10 of 2016 and the dispute regarding the possession of the disputed property is to be settled by the competent Civil Court. Since the matter is pending before the competent Civil Court, no protection can be granted as requested by the petitioner in this petition.
7.Hence this Court is of the considered view that there is no need to pass orders in this petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petiton is dismissed.
To
1.The Inspector of Police, Sivagiri Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..