This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to issue a direction to the first respondent to provide police protection to the petitioner and his property based on the petitioner's complaint dated 07.11.2016.
2. It is stated by the petitioner that he purchased a property in S.No.45/2 in Patta No.2497 to an extent of 0.68 acres at Erranahalli Village, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District by way of a registered sale deed dated 18.07.2002 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Palacode. The said property was purchased out of his own money, according to the petitioner. But the petitioner's parents and his brother (the respondents 2 to 4 herein) are trying to grapple his land. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.87 of 2015 before the District Munsif at Palacode, seeking the relief of declaration and injunction and the same was also decreed on 31.03.2016. Thus, the petitioner is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The petitioner tried to put up fences in the land, but since the parents and brother of the petitioner are trespassing into the property of the petitioner and quarreling with the petitioner's family members, he is not able to do so. In view of the same, the petitioner had given a complaint to the first respondent on 07.11.2016 to provide police protection to the petitioner and to his property. Since no steps have been taken by the police on the complaint given by the petitioner, the petitioner has come up with this Criminal Original Petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even after obtaining an order from the civil Court for injunction in favour of the petitioner, the respondents 2 to 4 have given continuous troubles to him. Hence, the strength of the order of the civil Court, he requested the respondent police to give police protection to fence his lands. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner 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. On the above submissions, I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the entire materials available on record.
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 the relief of 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 fence his property.
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 fence his property. However, the same will be at the cost of the petitioner.
Index : Yes/No 25.01.2017 Internet : Yes/No KM To
1. The Inspector of Police, Palacode Police Station, Dharmapuri District.
2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai-600 104.
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
KM Crl.O.P.No.1462 of 2017 25.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in