BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09-12-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Roja Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The District Collector, Chairman, District Vigilance and Monitoring Committee Sivagangai District.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District.

3. The District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Sivagangai District.

4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai Sub-Division, Sivagangai District.

5. The Inspector of Police, Tirupachethi Police Station, Sivagangai District.

Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s): Mr.C. Selvakumar For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, Government Advocate, for R-1 & R-3 Mr.A.S. Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (crl. Side), for R-2, 4 & 5 Prayer: To issue a Writ of Mandamus, (a) direct the 4th and 5th Respondents to immediately secure the accused persons and remanded to judicial custody who is involved in the caste-based offence committed against the Petitioner's husband, as mandated under the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (b) direct the 2^nd respondent to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner's husband and her family under Rule 12(4) of the SC/ST (POA) Rules, 1995;

(c) direct the 1^st and 3^rd respondents to forthwith disburse the stautory compensation/relief amount to petitioner's husband and arrange for high- quality medical treatment to petitioner's husband as mandated under 12 of the SC/ST (POA) Rules, based on the complaint given to the 5^th respondent dated 16.11.2025.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent police to remand the accused persons for the offence committed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and for further granting police protection and statutory compensation/relief amount under the SC/ST (POA) Rules.

2. As far as the first prayer is concerned, the same is rejected outright, as the petitioner cannot interfere in the proceedings of the respondent police, who are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

3. As far as the second prayer is concerned, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner has already been arrayed as an accused in Crime No. 213 of 2025 on the file of the Thiruppachet Police Station. Therefore, police protection is not feasible when the petitioner herself is an accused. However, after obtaining anticipatory bail, the petitioner is at liberty to submit an application for police protection. Upon such submission, the respondent police shall consider the same in accordance with law.

4. As far as the third prayer regarding the grant of compensation is concerned, the respondents shall consider the same. It is submitted that a representation has already been submitted before the first respondent/District Collector and is under process. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to consider the same at the earliest, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders.

5. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs.

09-12-2025 KSA To

1. The District Collector, Chairman, District Vigilance and Monitoring Committee Sivagangai District.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District.

3. The District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Sivagangai District.

4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai Sub-Division, Sivagangai District.

5. The Inspector of Police, Tirupachethi Police Station, Sivagangai District.

6. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.