SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26898

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J
Manickavasuki – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur – Respondent
Crl.OP.(MD)No.5590 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s.K.Malaimaran
For the Respondents:Mr.A.Albert James Government Advocate(crl.side) for R1 & R2

Police protection not granted in pure civil property disputes; approach civil court for possession remedies.

Headnote:The petition was filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, 2023, seeking police protection due to threats amid a property dispute. The court noted prior complaints registered as C.S.R. Nos. 77/2026 and 118/2026, both closed as civil in nature. The court determined the dispute to be purely civil, with no basis for police intervention. The key issue was whether police protection was warranted in a property dispute. The court observed that allegations indicated a civil matter unsuitable for criminal police action, emphasizing resort to civil remedies for possession claims. The Criminal Original Petition was disposed of with liberty to approach the civil court.

Table of Content
1. property dispute complaints closed as civil. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. no police protection; pursue civil court. (Para 5)

ORDER

The present petition has been filed seeking a direction as against the second respondent to provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and her family based upon their representation dated 09.03.2026.

2. The learned Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, submitted that due to property dispute, the third respondent who is the father-in-law of the petitioner has lodged a complaint which has been registered in C.S.R.No.77 of 2026 on 12.02.2026. The petitioner's husband has also lodged a complaint on 28.02.2026 which is registered in CSR No.118 of 2026.

3. According to the learned Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, both CSR were enquired into and closed on 01.03.2026 on the ground that there is a civil dispute between the petitioner's husband and the respondents herein.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that now she is in possession of the property and the respondents 3 to 6 are attempting to take possession from her.

5. The allegations made by the petitioner would clearly reveal that it is purely a civil dispute and the question of directing the police officials to give police protection would not arise. In case if the petitioner wants to protect her alleged possession over the property, she is always at liberty to approach the competent civil Court.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top