Veena Bai v. State
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. At the outset, this Court is of the view, such protection cannot be granted, particularly when there is a rival claim by the other side. The practice of granting blanket police protection, especially in respect of immovable property without establishing title, leads to serious…
Judgment
W.P.No.20783 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 22.08.2025CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMARW.P.No.20783 of 2024 Veena Bai... PetitionerVs.
State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, (Law and Order),E-1, Mamallapuram Police Station, Mamallapuram, Chengalpet District.
Muruganantham... RespondentsPRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus or may other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of writ, to direct the first respondent Police to give protection to enable the petitioner to put up compound wall in and around her property comprised in Survey No.191/2C mearsuring an extent of 70 cents situated at Poonjeri Village, Thirukazhikundram Taluk, Chengalpet District pursuant to her complaints dated 17.07.2023 and 13.06.2024.For Petitioner: Mr.R.Nilesh KumarFor R1 :Mr.K.M.D.MuhilanAdditional Public ProsecutorFor R2:Mr.K.Duraimuguan1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.20783 of 2024
O R D E RThis Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's complaints dated 17.07.2023 and 13.06.2024 and provide police protection for constructing the compound wall around the petitioner's land comprised in Survey No.191/2C mearsuring an extent of 70 cents situated at Poonjeri Village, Thirukazhikundram Taluk, Chengalpet District2.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that due to a civil dispute, the accused threatened the petitioner, aged about 64 years and prevented her from putting up construction around her property. Consequently, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the first respondent Police, for which, a CSR receipt was issued. However, there was no progress thereafter. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent that the civil suit is pending between the petitioner and the second respondent in O.S.No.27 of 2024 before the District Magistrate 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.20783 of 2024 Court, Thirukazhikundram.
Operative part
At the outset, this Court is of the view, such protection cannot be granted, particularly when there is a rival claim by the other side. The practice of granting blanket police protection, especially in respect of immovable property without establishing title, leads to serious consequences. In this aspect, the Hon'ble Apex Court in ''PR.Muralidharan and others Vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar'' reported in (2006) 4 SCC has held as follows:''...19.A Writ for ''Police Protection“ so-called, has only a limited scope, as when the Court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil Court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights have not been determined either finally by the civil Court or, at least at an interlocutory stage in an unambigous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order.'' 6. In view of the above, there shall not be any blanket Order for police protection and the petitioner can very well work out her remedy in accordance with law. 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.20783 of 20247.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs..22.08.2025hamIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet: YesNeutral Citation: Yes/NoTo 1. The Inspector of Police, (Law and Order),E-1, Mamallapuram Police Station, Mamallapuram, Chengalpet District. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.20783 of 2024N. SATHISH KUMAR , J. hamW.P.No.20783 of 202422.08.20255/5
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.