IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.06.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN Crl.O.P.No.10982 of 2017 Musthak Sheriff ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Commissioner of Police, Salem.
2. The Inspector of Police, Salem Town.
3. A.J.Nazar Basha ... Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to give protection to the petitioner and his brothers to peacefully enjoy the property in T.S.Nos.68 and 69 at Maravaneri Village, Salem and also to take action against the third respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Suresh For R1 & R2 : Mr.C.Emalias, Addl. Public Prosecutor ORDER The present criminal original petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to give protection to the petitioner and his brothers to peacefully enjoy the property in T.S.Nos.68 and 69 at Maravaneri Village, Salem and also to take action against the third respondent.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that originally, the property in T.S.Nos.68 and 69 situated at Maravaneri Village, Salem belonged to his father Nawab Sheriff. By proceedings dated 17.10.1966, in No.4941/66-B3, patta was granted in favour of the petitioner's father, in respect of the said property. After the death of his father on 27.11.1976, patta to the said property has been transferred to the name of the petitioner and his brothers and sisters. While so, the father of the third respondent B.Abdul Jabar and others had attempted to trespass and interfere with the said property, which compelled the petitioner and his brothers filed a suit in O.S.No.383 of 1982 before the learned District Munsif, Salem for permanent injunction. After due contest, the said suit was decreed in their favour, by a judgment and decree dated 06.01.1983, against which, the defendants filed A.S.No.2 of 1983. The said appeal was dismissed on 31.08.1994. Aggrieved over the same, the said second appeal was filed, which was also dismissed by this Court on 11.08.2000. Thus, the decree granted in favour of the petitioner and his brothers has attained finality. However, on 02.06.2017, the third respondent along with his henchmen deliberately made a criminal trespass into the property of the petitioner and thereby caused lot of trouble with criminal intention to illegally grab the property. In this regard, the petitioner made a petition to the second respondent on 02.06.2017 requesting to take action against the third respondent and provide police protection. Since no action has been taken on the said representation, he has come up with the present petition for the above stated relief.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even after obtaining civil court decree in favour of the petitioner, the third respondent has been continuously giving trouble to the petitioner and hence, the petitioner requested the respondent police to give police protection to him for enjoying the property in question. Learned counsel 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.
4. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the records.
5. 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 petitioner has obtained a decree in his favour from the competent civil Court and the same is now in force. Hence, based on the said order, the petitioner is entitled to get police protection.
6. In the result, the criminal original petition is allowed and the respondent police is directed to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner as and when required by him. However, the same shall be at the cost of the petitioner.
13.06.2017 Index:Yes/No rk To
1. The Commissioner of Police, Salem.
2. The Inspector of Police, Salem Town.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
rk Crl.O.P.No.10982 of 2017 DATED: 13.06.2017