KUMAR @ KUMARRAJ Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ERODE DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal original petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to give police protection to the petitioners' life and property by considering their complaint dated 04.01.2018.

(2.) This case appears to have a chequered history. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name.

(3.) One T.P.Rangasamy was the original owner of the property measuring 3.98 acres comprised in R.S.Nos.287/1, 287/2 and 288/5, Patlur Village, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District. It is said that he was a bachelor and was being taken care of by his sister Pachiammal. T.P.Rangasamy died on 19.04.2009. Pachiammal's children, viz., Loganathan, Gowthaman and Anandan contended that their maternal uncle T.P.Rangasamy had left a Will dated 11.06.2008 bequeathing all his properties to them. This was contested by the brothers and sisters of T.P.Rangasamy, viz., T.P.Venkatachalam and others who were the second class legal heirs of T.P.Rangasamy. Therefore, the second class legal heirs numbering 18 filed a suit in O.S.No.148 of 2009 for partitioning the properties of T.P.Rangasamy. In that suit, Pachiammal and her sons were shown as defendants. Pachiammal's children, viz., Loganathan, Gowthaman and Anandan filed O.S.No.145 of 2009 claiming title to the property via the Will dated 11.06.2008 by filing O.S.No.145 of 2009 against T.P.Venkatachalam and the second class legal heirs of the deceased T.P.Rangasamy. Both the suits were tried by the Additional District Judge No.4, Bhavani and by common judgment and decree dated 19.12.2016, the trial Court dismissed O.S.No.145 of 2009 and allowed O.S.No.148 of 2008 by passing a preliminary decree for partition. In other words, the trial Court rejected the Will dated 11.06.2008 proffered by Loganathan, Gowthaman and Anandan. Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees, Loganathan and his party have filed A.S.Nos.126 and 127 of 2017 before this Court and this Court has not granted any interim order of injunction in their favour. This Court has only stayed the passing of final decree in O.S.No.148 of 2009. While so, Loganathan gave a complaint dated 09.04.2017 to the Inspector of Police, Vellithiruppur Police Station, alleging that the opposite parties are trying to interfere with the possession of the property. On the complaint given by Loganathan, a petition enquiry was registered in CSR No.50 of 2017 by the police. Loganathan filed Crl.O.P.No.8314 of 2017 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for a direction to the respondent police to give police protection to his life and property. In the said petition, he has included only T.P.Venkatachalam as one of the respondents and has left out other plaintiffs numbering 18 in O.S.No.148 of 2009. Notice appears to have been served on T.P.Venkatachalam, but, he has not chosen to enter appearance in Crl.O.P.No.8314 of 2017. This Court has passed the following order in Crl.O.P.No.8314 of 2017 on 24.07.2017: