Judgment 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to direct the second respondent to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner's life and limb based on the complaint dated 17.07.2014. 2. Though the petitioner claims that he is the owner of the property comprised in Survey No.41/3, 41/3A, 41/3B2, 44/1, 44/1B to an extent of 3 acres and 3 cents, without any right one Mr.Manoharan and Palanivel are creating problem stating that they have got a power of attorney from the petitioner's vendor viz., Mr.Karuppannan. In this regard, the petitioner has already filed a complaint dated 24.09.2013. Since no action has been taken, the petitioner has filed Crl.O.P. (MD) No.11020 of 2013 and got an order on 06.11.2013, to take necessary action. Therefore, the second respondent registered an F.I.R. in Crime No.155 of 2014, dated 13.06.2014 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. showing the petitioner as "A" party and Manoharan as "B" party. Thereafter, also Manoharan and others threatened the petitioner on 16.07.2014. Hence, the petitioner filed a complaint on 17.07.2014 seeking police protection. Since no action has been taken, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents and perused the records. 4. A perusal of the sale deed dated 19.10.2012 would reveal that the petitioner purchased the above mentioned property from Karuppannan. The possession of the petitioner is proved by V.A.O certificate dated 24.01.2013 and the tax receipts filed along with the typed set of papers. If anybody creates problem, there should be based on certain documents. Without verifying it, based on the problem created by the opposite party, it seems 145 proceedings has been initiated. This Court sees no occasion for initiation of 145 proceedings especially when the petitioner is a owner of the property. Though 145 proceedings is not challenged before this Court, for the above reasons, the 145 proceedings initiated by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 25.06.2014 is hereby quashed. 5. As stated above, the petitioner has proved the title as per the sale deed dated 19.10.2012 and also possession as per the V.A.O. Certificate and tax receipts, the respondent police is directed to give appropriate police protection to the petitioner. 6. This Criminal Original Petition is ordered accordingly.