Haridoss v. State Rep by

ORDER This Criminal Original petition is filed to direct the respondents to give protection to the petitioner's life and liberty, enabling him to carry on peaceful business in the petitioner's shop.

¶2The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner who is in possession and enjoyment of the shop. The 3nd respondent has trespassed to his shop caused loss and also attacked the petitioner. The incident was reported to the respondent police. The case in Crime No. 203 of 2023 is also registered for the alleged offences under section 341, 448, 384 506(i), 109 of IPC read with section 3 of the The Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the said case while granting bail to the accused, a condition was imposed directing the 3rd respondent/accused to file an affidavit undertaking that he would not Page3 of 4 interfere in the peaceful possession of the defacto complainant's property. Accordingly, the affidavit was also filed. Thereafter, a Criminal Miscellaneous petition was also filed to vary the condition which was also dismissed. In spite thereof, the 3rd respondent is interfering in the peaceful possession of the property. This court is not pronouncing upon the merits of the case and as such, the criminal original petition is disposed of at the admission stage, without notice to the 3rd respondent. So long as, affidavit of undertaking as directed by the Court is there on record and the same is not varied by any competent Court, the 3rd respondent is liable to abide by the said condition. The parties have also not moved to the Civil court. If there is any order of the civil Court then thereafter the property rights will be dependent upon the orders of the civil court. In the interregnum, since it is stated that affidavit is filed pursuant to the direction of this court, it is the duty of the third respondent to abide by the directions. It will be open for the petitioner to bring any instance of violation of the undertaking to the respondent police and immediately upon receiving the information, the respondent police shall take appropriate action. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is disposed of. 10-07-2026 PBL Page4 of 4

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. PBL To

¶1The Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai,

¶2The Inspector of Police Kilkodungalore Police Station,

¶3The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 10-07-2026

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Haridoss S/o. Perumal, Mangalamamandur Junction, Vandavasi Taluk, ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State Rep by The Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai, 2. The Inspector of Police Kilkodungalore Police Station, 3. Metharamesh S/o. Kuppusamy, 375, Melmaruvathur Road, Mangalamamandur Junction, Vandavasi Taluk, ..Respondent(s) Page2 of 4 PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS praying to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to provide police protection to the petitioners life and liberty for enabling him to carry peaceful business in the petitioners shop situated at Mangalam Mamandur village, Vandavasi Taluk, For Petitioner(s): Mr. R.Thirumoorthy For Respondent(s): Mr. R. Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) For R1 And R2.