The suit filed in O.S.No.283 of 2014 on the file of the Sub- Court, Arakkonam by one D.Kannappan, against the petitioner's vendor seeking the relief of specific performance, permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and for a declaration to declare that the sale deed executed by him in favour of the petitioner's vendor-
R.Jayasankar, in respect of the property in S.Nos.112/2-1.50 acres out of 2.16 acres, 113/2 – 0.02.5 cents out of 10 cents, 1/4th share well and electric motor pumpset in S.C.Nos.42, 131/9 – 0.17 cents, 131/10 – 0.83 cents, 131/11 – 0.66 cents, measuring to a total extent of 3.16 acres, came to be dismissed on 18.07.2016 and against the said judgment, no appeal has been filed or pending. Thereafter the said property was purchased by the petitioner and he is in possession of the same. While the petitioner tried to plough the lands, the said Kannappan trespassed into the property and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. The petitioner made a complaint dated 19.05.2017 to the respondent, seeking police protection, but the same has not been considered till now. Hence this Criminal Original Petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner is in possession of the property in question and the suit filed against the petitioner's vendor by the said Kannappan came to be dismissed by the Civil Court, the said Kannappan is continuously giving trouble to the petitioner and hence, the petitioner requested the respondent police to give police protection to him and his family. The 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.
3. On the above submissions, I have heard also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and perused the entire materials available on record.
4. In the decision reported in 2014 (2) CTC 695 - Radhika Sri Hari and another v. Commissioner of Police, in paragraphs 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 the suit filed against the petitioner's vendor has been dismissed and the said judgment is now in force. Hence, based on the said judgment, the petitioner is entitled to get police protection for his life and property.
5. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the respondent police is directed to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner's life and property, as and when required by him. However, the same will be at the cost of the petitioner. No costs.
Index : Yes/No 20.06.2017 Internet : Yes/No KM To
1. The Inspector of Police, Nemili Police Station, Nemili, Vellore District.
2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai-600 104.
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
KM Crl.O.P.No.11484 of 2017 20.06.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in