Radhika Sri Hari vs The Commissioner Of Police on 12 March, 2014

Madras High Court

Radhika Sri Hari vs The Commissioner Of Police on 12 March, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 12.03.2014

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

Crl.O.P.No.8924 of 2013

1.Radhika Sri Hari

2.S.Sreekanth .. Petitioners
Vs

1.The Commissioner of Police

Coimbatore City, Coimbatore

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police

Coimbatore South Podanur
Coimbatore

3.The Inspector of Police

B-7, Ramanathapuram Police Station
Puliakulam, Ramanathapuram
Coimbatore-641045

4.Kaliammal
5.Palaniammal
6.Dhanapakkiyam@Pappathi
7.Muruganathan
8.Nagarathinam
9.Arumugham
10.Sakunthala
11.Selvaraj
12.Rajendran
13.Hamsaveni
respondents 4 to 13 impleaded as per the order of
this court dated 15.04.2013 in Crl.O.P.No.8924/13 ..respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to provid
For Petitioner : Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/107828882/ 1

 Radhika Sri Hari vs The Commissioner Of Police on 12 March, 2014

Mr.B.Baskaran

For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, APP for R1 to 3

Mr.L.Baskaran for R4 to 13

O R D E R

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code seeking a direction to the
respondents to provide necessary police protection to the petitioners to put up fresh barbed wire
fence at the damaged places in the petitioner's property.

2. Learned Senior counsel for petitioners took this court through the typed set of papers to inform
that in various proceedings before civil courts, the right to property of the petitioners stands secured
and it culminated in judgment of this court in S.A.No.855/1977 by order dated 30.09.1981. A Special
Leave Petition preferred against such order was dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Learned
Senior counsel referred to order of this court to the order in W.P.No.7356 of 2012 dated 31.07.2012,
wherein this court held as follows:

"7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents 1 to 4, to earmark the
boundaries of the land, as per the sale deed dated 6.6.1943, after notice to both parties and if
necessary, with assistance of the police. No costs. Consequently, the above Mps are closed."

Pursuant to such order, demarcation of property was done by the Town Sub Inspector of Survey,
Coimbatore East. The contesting respondents being dissatisfied with such demarcation moved
Contempt petition No.1444 of 2012, wherein while dismissing the same under orders dated
10.01.2013, this court held as follows:

"6. If the petitioners are still aggrieved, the remedy open to them is to institute appropriate civil suit
and get appropriate declaration and not to pursue the contempt. The contempt petition is
misconceived. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands dismissed."

It is submitted by learned Senior counsel that the petitioners attempt to place a fresh fence over the
property specifically earmarked as belonging to them is being interfered and thwarted by the
contesting respondents. Learned Senior counsel for petitioner submits that an extent of 2106 square
feet demarcated as a share of the contesting respondents registered under compromise proceedings
in E.P.No.94 of 1984 will not be interfered by the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that this court in dismissing the
contempt petition has left it open to them to initiate appropriate civil suit and obtain appropriate
declaration. As the matter in issue arises out of civil disputes between the parties, this court would
direct the petitioner to seek remedy through civil process. In the circumstances, this court would not
issue direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for contesting respondents referred to the judgment of the Apex court in Moran

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/107828882/ 2

 Radhika Sri Hari vs The Commissioner Of Police on 12 March, 2014

M.Baselios Marthoma Mathews II v. State of Kerala, (2007) 6 SCC 517, wherein it has been held as
follows:

"15. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed a
manifest error in going into the disputed questions of title as also the disputed questions in regard
to the rights of a particular group to manage the Churches, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction,
particularly, when such questions are pending consideration before competent Civil Courts. We,
therefore, are of the opinion that any observation made by the High Court should not influence the
Courts concerned 7in arriving at their independent decisions and in respect thereof, all contentions
of the parties shall remain open.

16. We are making these observations, particularly in view of the fact that even a large number of
persons who have filed different suits in different Courts of law were not parties before the High
Court in the writ petition and thus any observation and findings of the High Court would otherwise
also not be binding on them."

5. We have considered the rival submissions. We have also heard the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor.

6. The reliance placed on decision referred to by the learned counsel for contesting respondents is
misplaced. While it is true that pending civil proceedings, this court would not interfere in exercise
of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the instant is a case, wherein the right of the petitioners to
property stand crystallised under order of S.A.No.855 of 1977. Pursuant to subsequent proceedings
in W.P.No.7356 of 2012, the property of the petitioners came to be demarcated under proceedings of
the appellate authorities viz Town Sub Inspector of Survey, Coimbatore East. Such official act has
been challenged by way of contempt proceedings and the same stand dismissed. It is not the
contention of learned counsel for contesting respondents that pursuant to the order in
Cont.P.No.1444 of 2012, they have moved any civil forum. However, he would submit that
contesting respondents are poor people pitted against the affluent persons in whose aid the police
agency also is working.

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."

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/107828882/ 3

 Radhika Sri Hari vs The Commissioner Of Police on 12 March, 2014

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.

12.03.2014.

C.T.SELVAM, J., kpr To

1.The Commissioner of Police Coimbatore City, Coimbatore

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police Coimbatore South Podanur,Coimbatore

3.The Inspector of Police B-7, Ramanathapuram Police Station Puliakulam,

Ramanathapuram,Coimbatore-641045

4.The Public Proseuctor Madras High Court, Chennai Crl.O.P.No.8924 of 2013 12.03.2014

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/107828882/ 4