Courts exercising jurisdiction under criminal procedure should not determine civil disputes but are empowered to ensure public peace by recording binding undertakings from opposing parties, thereby providing conditional protective orders to safeguard institutions affected by conflicts between rival stakeholders.

ORDER :

L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Preface:

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 1^st and 2^nd respondent police to grant adequate police protection to the petitioners’ life and limb by considering the representation dated 29.12.2025.

2. Though the background facts reveal a long-drawn dispute touching upon the administration of a charitable Trust and the right to hold the office of Secretary / Correspondent of a Women’s college, the issue that falls for consideration in this Criminal Original Petition is comparatively narrow. This Court is not called upon to decide the ultimate civil rights of the parties. The limited question is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the light of the affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent before this Court, suitable directions are required to preserve peace and normalcy in the institution till the trust proceedings pending before the learned Principal District Judge, Sivagangai, are finally decided.

3. Since the institution in question is a women’s college and the allegations placed before this Court concern obstruction, intimidation, assault, disruption of administration and disturbance to students and staff, this Court is required to balance the asserted civil rights of the parties with the larger imperative of maintaining law and order and institutional stability.

Facts of the Case:

4. The petitioners’ case, in brief, is that the first petitioner is the Correspondent and Secretary of Seethalakshmi Achi College for Women and also of the Seethalakshmi Achi College for Women Endowment Trust, situated at Pallathur, Sivagangai District. The second petitioner represents the management staff of the self-financing wing of the college.

5. According to the petitioners, the institution is a private women’s college established in the form of a public charitable trust and governed by the Deed of Declaration of Trust dated 1966. It is their specific case that the Trust Deed itself governs the mode of devolution of the offices of President of the Trust Board, Correspondent of the College and Secretary of the Trust.

6. The petitioners place reliance upon Clauses 9, 11 and 12 of the Trust Deed. According to them, those clauses make it clear that, after the lifetime of the founder, the offices of President of the Trust Board and Correspondent of the College are not to be held by the same member of the founder’s family, except in the case of the founder, and that the Correspondent of the College shall also hold the office of Secretary of the Trust after the lifetime of the Founder /

Correspondent.

7. Proceeding on that basis, the petitioners would state that the first petitioner is lawfully entitled to hold the office of Correspondent / Secretary under the Trust Deed. It is further stated that the fifth respondent, namely the Director of Collegiate Education, had earlier recognised the petitioner as Secretary and that such recognition was only for the limited statutory purpose of identifying the authorised signatory in matters concerning aided staff salary disbursement.

8. The petitioners would further state that disputes arose when the third respondent, who is the President of the Trust Board, began asserting himself as Secretary in violation of the Trust Deed. According to the petitioners, this led to earlier rounds