CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., to pass an order of direction directing the respondents to give police protection to the petitioners found in the complaint given by the petitioners dated 17.03.2009 Mr. I. Paul Nobel Deva Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) HEARD the submissions made on either side.

(3.) AN exparte decree was passed in the said case on 05.09.2008 as prayed for. But before, the said exparte decree was passed, the petitioners seem to have filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No,762/2008 in O.S.No.184/2008 seeking a direction to the Inspector of Police, Vadalur and other police personnel for giving protection to the petitioners to ensure their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The exparte order came to be passed on 25.08.2008 in the said Interlocutory Application allowing the said petition. Under what circumstances such a petition seeking a direction to the police to give protection was filed, is not made clear by the petitioners. From the copy of the order passed in the above said Interlocutory Application, this Court is able to find that an Interlocutory Application praying for interim injunction had also been filed and the respondent herein had been set exparte in the said petition also. Whether any interim injunction pending disposal of the suit had been granted or not is not known. The affidavit filed in the present petition is also silent about it. On the other hand, paragraph 2 of the affidavit has been prepared in such a way to make it appear that the direction to the Inspector of Police to give Police protection was obtained after the passing of the exparte decree in the suit. But, it is obvious that the exparte decree was passed on 05.09.2008, whereas, the direction to the police to give protection was issued on 25.08.2008 itself. If at all the order of injunction had been violated, the petitioners could have proceeded against the persons violating the order of injunction either under Order 39 Rule 2 and Rule 2(A) of C.P.C. or under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. However, the petitioners had chosen to file a petition under Section 151 C.P.C seeking a mere order for police protection. In other words, the said order of police protection was sought for in an attempt to execute the exparte order of injunction obtained against the defendants in the above said suit. Many material particulars have been suppressed by the petitioners in this petition. Whether the exparte decree obtained is still in force or whether any petition to set aside the exparte decree has been filed has not been stated in this petition. On the other hand, the petitioners on the strength of the exparte decree seem to have lodged a complaint with the police on 17.03.2009 and then on 23.03.2009 seeking police protection.