D MUTHUKRISHNAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENGAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner submits that he seeks for police protection in the following circumstances. Admittedly, there is an order of interim injunction passed by the learned District Munsif, Poonamallee in I.A. No. 2842/91 in O.S. No. 2125/91 restraining Thiruvannamalai Kundrakudi Adheenam represented by its Power of Attorney S. Aranganathan from interfering with the Petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The Petitioners in I.A. No. 2842/91 are the Plaintiffs 1 to 5. The Petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 8582/91 is the third Petitioner in I.A. No. 2842/91 Learned District Munsif, Poonamallee granted an interim injunction on 11.11.1991 and the order of interim injunction has been subsequently extended by the trial court. Then the Petitioner in I.A. No. 2842/91 in O.S. No. 2125/91 moved this Court by filing Crl.O.P. No. 13874 of 1991 against the Inspector of Police, Adambakkam and E. Aranganathan, the second Respondent subsequently impleaded by order of this Court made in Crl.M.P. No. 273/92 on 17.2.92 for a direction to the police to the first Respondent to provide the Petitioner therein and the members of his family for necessary police assistance pursuant to his L.P. No. 135/91. That application came up for final hearing before the learned Judge (Pratap Singh, J.) who passed an order on 6.4.1992 dismissing that application. Learned Judge in the course of his order observed as follows:

(2.) The present petition is resisted by the third Respondent, now impleaded by this Court in this petition on the ground that the order in the Interim Application is not final and therefore, police protection should not be granted. The second ground is that under the guise of police protection it is now sought for by the Petitioner to evict the contesting third Respondent from the suit premises. The order of interim injunction is to restrain the third Respondent herein from interfering with the Petitioner possession and enjoyment of the suit property. That order has to be obeyed by the third Respondent till that order is made absolute or any other order is passed subsequently by the trial court.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the third Respondent cited a judgment before me reported in G. Krishnan v. Superintendent of Police, Madurai and three others, 1992 LW(Cri) 355. There, the learned Judge (Bakthavatsalam, J.) passed an order directing the police to render police help in order to enforce the order of injunction granted in I.A. No. 246/90 in O.S. No. 393/90 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurai. Learned Counsel for the third Respondent wanted to make a distinction between the judgment rendered by the learned Judge from the facts of the present case. Learned Judge passed the order directing the police to render police help after the order of interim injunction was made absolute. It appears from his argument that the interim order before it was made absolute should not be obeyed or the police should not be directed or enter assistance pursuant to interim order. I am unable to find any difference between the interim order or the order made absolute by a civil court. The Inspector of Police, Adambakkam has failed to obey the order of the learned Judge, Pratap Singh, J. made in Crl.O.P. No. 13874/91 dated 6.4.1992. It is not an order dismissing simpliciter. Learned Judge has observed that it is open to the first Respondent-Inspector of Police, to afford that much of protection as is needed in the circumstances of the case on the complaint already given by the Petitioner. This should not be considered that the learned Judge has simply dismissed that application without making any observation. It is common in the course of passing an order in favour of the Petitioner or dismissing the application against the Petitioner, to make an observation and even that observation has to be obeyed since they are in the nature of direction. Learned Judge gave an observation as stated above to the police. That does not mean that the police should refuse to entertain the application and to act on the complaint. That is not the intention of the order of the learned Judge.