Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3945 (MAD)

Robert Kanagaraj @ Vinoba v. Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli

2014-10-20

N.KIRUBAKARAN

body2014
Judgment 1. This petition is filed seeking a direction to direct the second respondent to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner's life and limb based on the complaint dated 26.07.2014. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that he is having the property measuring 1 Acre 29 Cents in Survey No.574/2A having purchased the property by way of a sale deed dated 09.05.1994 and all the revenue records are standing in the name of the petitioner. When things stand so, the accused trespassed into the property on 07.06.2014 and therefore, the petitioner gave a complaint dated 07.06.2014, but no action has been taken so far. Hence, 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. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents would submit that based on the petitioner's complaint, an F.I.R has been registered in Crime No.498 of 2014 on 21.07.2014 under Sections 147, 447, 294(b), 434, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. Thereafter, the accused persons got anticipatory bail. 5. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the said accused are threatening the petitioner. The facts narrated above would show that based on the petitioner's complaint, an F.I.R has been registered and the petitioner is under threat. Hence, this Court directs the respondents police to give adequate police protection to the petitioner's life and limb. 6. With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.