Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10138 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.09.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10138 of 2025 R.Veeraiya ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by 1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli Police Station, Virudhunagar District. 3.Seeni Nayakkar 4.Gengatharan 5.Anumanth 6.Thangaraj ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to direct the second respondent to provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members from the third to sixth respondents. _____________ Page No. 1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10138 of 2025 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugappan For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor For R4 & R5 : No appearance O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to provide adequate police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members from the third to sixth respondents. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was a poojari in Sri Rajakaliamman Kovil situated at Valayapatti, Thiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District; that the third to sixth respondents removed him and thereafter prevented him from worshipping in the temple; that the petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No.19064 of 2022 before this Court, and by order dated 18.08.2022, this Court directed him to approach the civil court and establish his case; and that the third to sixth respondents, however, criminally intimidated the petitioner and his family members and threatened them of dire consequences if they did not vacate the village and hence, the police protection is required. _____________ Page No. 2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10138 of 2025 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first and second respondents, per contra, would submit that the petitioner’s complaint was enquired into and it was found that the third and sixth respondents had neither committed any of the alleged offences nor were guilty of excommunicating the petitioner, and therefore, the allegation made by the petitioner is false. 4. From the earlier proceedings and the submissions made on either side, it appears to be a case relating to a claim for performing pooja at the temple. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any action of the third to sixth respondents, as observed by this Court in its earlier order dated 18.08.2022 in W.P.(MD) No.19064 of 2022, it is open to him to approach the civil court. However, if the petitioner lodges a complaint disclosing a cognizable offence, it is needless to state that the first and second respondents shall take necessary action in accordance with law. 5. With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 08.09.2025 JEN Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes / No _____________ Page No. 3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10138 of 2025 Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order Copy To: 1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli Police Station, Virudhunagar District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. _____________ Page No. 4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10138 of 2025 SUNDER MOHAN , J. JEN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10138 of 2025 08.09.2025 _____________ Page No. 5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis