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) 34673

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
B.PUGALENDHI, J
Chinnu – Appellant
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District – Respondent
Criminal Original Petition



Advocates:
For Petitioner: M/s.J.Lakshmiprasanna
For R1 and R2:Mr.A.Albert James, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

Police cannot intervene in purely civil property possession disputes.

Headnote:First Paragraph: Under Section 528 of BNSS Act, petitioner sought police protection against alleged interference with possession of property in specified survey numbers. Facts involve petitioner's complaint dated 18.12.2025 registered as CSR No.613 of 2025. Court found dispute purely civil in nature, advising approach to civil court (paras 3-5). Second Paragraph: Issues framed as whether police should intervene despite civil dispute nature. Ratio decidendi: Police not to interfere in purely civil disputes per Police Standing Orders; parties advised to seek civil remedies (para 4). Last Paragraph: Criminal Original Petition closed with liberty to approach competent civil court.

Table of Content
1. petitioner alleges interference with property possession. (Para 2)
2. police registered enquiry, deemed civil dispute. (Para 3)

ORDER

The petitioner, with a grievance that respondents 3 and 4 are disturbing his possession of the property comprised in Survey Nos. 24/6, 24/12 and 24/13, situated at Maranadu Village, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District, has approached the respondent police and has also filed this petition seeking police protection.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents 3 and 4 are interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession of the property and, despite a complaint given to the respondent police, no effective action has been taken. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the petitioner’s complaint dated 18.12.2025 was received and registered as a petition enquiry in CSR No.613 of 2025. After enquiry, both the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 were advised to approach the appropriate civil Court, as the dispute is civil in nature. He further submitted that, as per the Police Standing Orders, the police do not interfere in purely civil disputes. 4. This Court, upon considering the rival submissions, is of the view that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The police are not supposed to interfere in such civil disputes. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any interference with his possession and claims title over the property, he is at liberty to approach the appropriate civil Court and seek appropriate relief. 5. Recording the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), this Criminal Original Petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before 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