ORDER :

1. Since the issue involved is connected and the parties to the proceedings are same, both the Criminal Revision Case and the Criminal Original Petition were heard together and are decided by this common order.

2. The Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioners /B party to quash the order dated 16.10.2015 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Sub-Collector, Pollachi in M.C. No.7/2015/A1, whereas the Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the third respondent in the Criminal Revision Case, seeking a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 / police authorities to implement the order dated 09.02.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Sub-Collector, Pollachi, subsequent to the said proceedings in M.C.No.07/2015/A1 dated 16.10.2015, by providing adequate police protection to this petitioner and his properties.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are as follows:

3.1 Originally, the properties in T.S.Nos.288/1A and 288/2 situated in

Periyapodhu Village, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District, measuring to an extent of 4.31.0 Hectares and 0.17 acres respectively totalling 10.08 acres, a Well connected to 5 HP electric motor with electricity connection service No.86, 800 coconut plants and cart path in T.S.No.283B belonged to one Shanmugam Chettiar, S/o.Nachimuthu Chettiar. After his demise, the daughters of the said Shanmugam Chettiar, viz., (i)Visalakshi (ii)Muthulakshmi (iii)Ramathal (iv)Parameshwari (v)Lakshmi @ Lakshmiathal (vi)Ranganayagi, jointly executed a power of attorney vide Document No.80/2005 in favour of their brothers viz., Thirumalaisamy and Sakthivadivel, in respect of the said extent of 10.82 acres at Periyapodhu Village, Pollachi Taluk. Thereafter, the legal heirs of the deceased Shanmugam Chettiar numbering 11, sold the said properties to one Balakrishnan and Saraswathi, who are none else than the son and daughter-in-law of the third respondent in Crl.RC.No.1149 of 2015 and the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.7500 of 2016, by name, Devanasamy, through their power agent Lakshmi, by a sale deed dated 22.09.2005 registered as Document No.2332 of 2005, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Anaimalai and since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. All the revenue records in respect of the said properties stood in their names.

3.2 In the year 2008, the legal heirs of one of the vendors of the said Balakrishnan and Saraswathi / Ramaraj, viz., Sasi @ Renuka and Kokila @ Karpagavalli filed a suit in O.S.No.113 of 2008 before the District Munsif, Pollachi, against Thirumalai Chettiar and 14 others, for partition, which was dismissed as not pressed by Judgment and Decree dated 13.04.2018.

3.3 Subsequently, the said Balakrishnan and Saraswathi filed a suit in O.S.No.326 of 2015 for permanent injunction, whereas one Muthumanickam and 7 others claiming themselves as legal heirs of Thirumalai Chettiar, Sakthivel and Radhakrishnan instituted a suit in O.S.No.294 of 2015 before the Sub Court, Pollachi for partition. The female legal heirs also filed a counter claim petition in I.A.No.999 of 2015. All the civil proceedings are pending.

3.4 When the things stood thus, the said Devanasamy, who is the third respondent in Crl.RC.No.1149/2015 and the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.7500 of 2016 lodged a police complaint, alleging that the legal heirs of the vendors were creating nuisance / disturbance to the possession and enjoyment of the properties by the third respondent in the Criminal Revision/ petitioner in the Criminal Revision Petition, who purchased the same, in favour of his son and daughter-in-law viz., Balakrishnan and Saraswathi, which was registered as FIR in Crime No.278 of 2015 on the file of Anaimalai Police Station, against the accused person. On the other hand, a third party by name Shanmuganandham preferred a complaint against one Rajan and 14 others including the said Devanasamy and his son Balakrishnan as if they were attempting to trespass into the subject pro