Madras High Court
M.Selvi vs The Superintendent Of Police on 23 November, 2023
Author: G.Ilangovan
Bench: G.Ilangovan
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19818 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 23/11/2023
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.OP(MD)No.19818 of 2023
1.M.Selvi
2.M.Esakkimuthu
3.Ulagamuthu
4.Suresh
(Petitioners 2 to 4 are
minors on behalf of natural
guardian is the mother herein
1st petitioner) : Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
O/o.Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi District.
Thoothukudi.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Srivaikundam Police Station,
Srivaikundam,
Thoothukudi District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Seidunganallur Police Station,
Seidunganallur,
Thoothukudi District.
5.Deivakannan : Respondents
PRAYER:-Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to
direct the respondents to give adequate police protection
to life and limb of the petitioners and their family
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19818 of 2023
members, based on the representation, dated 21/10/2023
and 30/10/2023 and to pass such further or order orders.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sivaprakash
For R1 to R4 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
O R D E R
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking for direction to the official respondents to give police protection to the first petitioner and her family members, on the basis of the representation, dated 21/10/2023 and 30/10/2023.
2.Facts in brief:-
The first petitioner was married to one Mayandi. They are having three children. The first petitioner's husband was working as Fork Lift Operator at Sun Chamber, Alwar Thoppu. In the year 2020, FIR was registered against him. Final report was filed, after completing the investigation. He was regularly appearing before Judicial Magistrate, Srivaigundam. In the meantime, compromise was reached between the parties. During trial process, the 5th respondent was appointed as an Advocate for him, since both of them are in the very same village. But the 5th respondent cheated the de-facto complainant as well as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19818 of 2023 husband of the first petitioner. When it was questioning by him, trouble arose between them. The 5th respondent abused in filthy language, attacked the husband of the first petitioner and also threatened him with dire consequences. He was admitted in the Government Hospital, Srivaigundam, where his statement was recorded.
3.On 03/08/2023 at about 04.30 pm, the 2nd petitioner went to the shop for purchasing domestic materials. At that time, the brother of the 5th respondent and his father, picked up quarrel, attacked him with wooden log and also damaged the two wheeler. Over which, the 5 th respondent and others were booked in Crime No.119 of 2023 for the offences punishable under sections 341, 294(b), 352, 427 and 506(ii) IPC.
4.On the very same day, at about 05.10 pm, due to pervious motive, the 5th respondent and other persons trespassed into house of the petitioners and attacked the first petitioner and her husband namely Mayandi. In the course of the occurrence, the husband of the first petitioner was murdered and first petitioner sustained injury. In this connection, a case in Crime No.118 of 2023 was registered against the 5th respondent and others for the offences under sections 147, 148, 449, 294(b), https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19818 of 2023 302, 307, 115, 506(ii) IPC r/w 109 IPC and section 4 of TNPHW Act. The 1st petitioner was admitted in the hospital and taking treatment. The 5th respondent was searched by the police for the offence. The 1st petitioner also made a complaint. Thereafter only, he was arrested and now, he is in judicial custody. Most of the accused persons are detained under Goondas Act. Even after the expiry of statutory period, final report was not filed by the first respondent police. If the 5th respondent and others are released on bail, there is every likelihood of causing life threat, assault and death also. The 5th respondent is involved in several cases as detailed in the petition. In many of the cases, the eye witnesses were murdered at the instigation of the 5th respondent. The 1st petitioner made representation seeking adequate police protection, on 21/10/2023 and 30/10/2023. But no action was taken by the respondents police. So, this petition is filed seeking police protection to the first petitioner and her family members namely the petitioners 2 to 4.
5.Heard the petitioners' counsel and the first petitioner was present before this court. The first respondent was also present at the time of hearing. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19818 of 2023
6.Survivor of the murderous attack, who lost her husband in the above said brutal attack, seeks police protection for the purpose of surviving to give evidence against the accused. This is the sub and substance of the subject matter.
7.It started as a small issue between the Advocate and the client over the payment of fees return due to compromise, etc. That ended in elimination by murder namely the husband of the first petitioner and father of the petitioners 2 to 4 on the occurrence day.
8.Considering the gravity of the offence and the antecedent of the accused, they were detained under Goodas Act. What happened to the others is not available on record. But the fact remains that all the accused persons are now in custody. Final report has also been filed and the trial is also going to be taken up by the Sessions Court.
9.In the representation, it has been stated that against the accused persons, already three murder cases were registered. Apart from that, they are also involved in double murder in 2017. The witnesses in the above said murder case also done to death by the accused. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19818 of 2023
10.Apart from that, in the petition, cases that are registered against the accused are also mentioned.
11.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would also confirm that the accused persons are having bad antecedent. They received intelligence input to the life of the petitioners. The first petitioner is also under life threat. When that is being the position, the representations, dated 21/10/2023 and 31/10/2023 made by the first petitioner ought to have been considered by the first respondent herein. The petition was presented on 31/10/2023, even without giving breathing time to the first respondent herein to consider the representation. May be that, urgent attention of the first respondent is required.
12.The petitioners ought to have filed writ petition, instead of criminal original petition. But this court suppose that this petition has been filed on the ground that the trial process is pending before the trial court and they are also inviting the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme in Smruti Tukaram Badada Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (Criminal Appeal No.1101 of 2019, dated 11/01/2022). So, the mistake on that aspect committed by the petitioners in filing the petition may not be taken as seriously.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19818 of 2023
13.Now whatever it may be, a mistake committed by the petitioners in not giving breathing time to the first respondent, I am of the considered view that the matter can be disposed of in view of the development as well as the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side).
14.The Witness Protection Scheme has evolved over a period of time. Now another proposal is pending in the pipeline to be cleared in the form of framing Rules namely Draft Guidelines for recording the evidence of Vulnerable Witnesses. At any point of time, it may come into force. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Smruti Tukaram Badade Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (Criminal Appeal No.110 of 2019, dated 11/01/2023) held that who is a Vulnerable witness under the provisions of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 as approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahender Chawla Vs. Union of India [(2019)14 SCC 615]. So, the protection of the witness is as important as the protection of the human rights of the accused. Both must be balanced in a proper manner. So, no more discussion is required in this case, since life threat is real and true to the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19818 of 2023
15.So a direction is issued to the first respondent herein to provide police protection to the petitioners round the clock. If necessity arises after ascertaining the intelligence in put, armed protection may also be considered by the first respondent. The above said protection may be given immediately on receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that the first respondent may not insist upon the petitioners to pay charges for providing the police protection, since they are fitting into the category of 'Vulnerable Witnesses' under the Witness Protection Scheme.
16.With the above said direction, this criminal original petition stands allowed.
23/11/2023 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er Note:Issue order copy on 24/11/2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19818 of 2023 To,
1.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o.Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District.
Thoothukudi.
3.The Inspector of Police, Srivaikundam Police Station, Srivaikundam, Thoothukudi District.
4.The Inspector of Police, Seidunganallur Police Station, Seidunganallur, Thoothukudi District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19818 of 2023 G.ILANGOVAN, J er Crl.OP(MD)No.19818 of 2023 23/11/2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/10