IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.06.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN Crl.O.P.No.11898 of 2016 P.Natarajan ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu.
2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Mangalam Police Station, Mangalam, Polur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3. Shanthi
4. Elumalai ... Respondents (R3 & R4 impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 27.07.2016 in Crl.MP No.7840/2016 in Crl.OP No.11898/2016) Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the respondents to give a police protection to the petitioner herein based upon his complaint dated 05.05.2016, when the petitioner lays a underground pipeline as exist in his land as earlier and also give protection to visit his property without fear of life.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Gowthaman For R1 & R2 : Mr.C.Emalias, APP For R3 & R4 : No representation ORDER The present criminal original petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to give police protection to the petitioner, for the purpose of laying an underground pipeline, based on his complaint dated 05.05.2016.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that there was an oral partition between the petitioner and his brother Ramasami. As per the said partition, he had been allotted 1.60 acres of agricultural land, which includes a Well measuring to an extent of 10 cents. The petitioner has laid down an underground pipeline to take water for his agricultural land. There was no dispute between the brothers. However, dispute arose, after the death of his brother. The third respondent and her two sons, who are none other than the wife and children of the petitioner's brother Ramasami, disturbed the petitioner from taking water for his agricultural land through the said pipeline. On 08.06.2012, the third respondent along with 10 persons, illegally encroached the petitioner's land and removed the pipeline and also threatened him. Hence, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.199 of 2012 before the District Munsif Court, Polur for permanent injunction and obtained an exparte decree in his favour, by a judgment and decree dated 14.08.2012, against which, no appeal was filed, as such, the same has become final and binding on the parties. Now, he intended to lay an underground pipeline. However, apprehending that the said work would be disturbed by the third respondent and her sons, the petitioner made a complaint dated 05.05.2016 to the respondents 1 and 2 requesting to provide police protection to him. Since no action was taken on the said complaint, he has come forward with the present petition for the above stated relief.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on the strength of the civil court decree, the petitioner requested the respondent police to give police protection to lay an underground pipeline for the purpose of taking water for his agricultural land. However, the said request was not considered so far. 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. Despite the service of notice and the name of the respondents 3 and 4 having been printed in the cause list, none appears for the respondents 3 and 4.
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 for permanent injunction 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 to lay an underground pipeline in his land.
6. In the result, the criminal original petition is allowed and the respondent police is directed to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner for a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to enable him to lay an underground pipeline in his land. However, the same will be at the cost of the petitioner.
23.06.2017 Index:Yes/No rk To
1. The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu.
2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Mangalam Police Station, Mangalam, Polur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
rk Crl.O.P.No.11898 of 2016 DATED: 23.06.2017