nrhj;jpd; chpikahsh; ahh; vd;W fz;lwpAk;
chpikapay; ePjpgjpf;fhd gzpia
fhty;Jiwapdh; nra;af;$lhJ. xU fhty;Jiw
mjpfhhp ePjpgjpia Nghd;W nray;gl KbahJ.
vdNt chpikapay; rk;ge;jg;gl;l tof;Ffspy;
fhty;Jiwapdh; jiyaplf;$lhJ.
kJiu cah;ePjpkd;wk;
CRL. OP. NO - 17302/2014, DT - 12.11.2014
A. rpf;fe;jh; Vs fhty;Jiw mjpfhhpfs;> kJiu
2015-1-MLJ-CRL-5
A.Sikkandar vs The Commissioner Of Police on 12 November, 2014
A.Sikkandar vs The Commissioner Of Police on 12 November,
2014
Author: P.Devadass
Bench: P.Devadass
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.11.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.17302 of 2014
1.A.Sikkandar
2.Abubukkar ...Petitioners
-Vs-
1.The Commissioner of Police,
O/o. The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
South Gate Police Station,
Madurai ? 625 001. ..Respondents
PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
praying to restrain the respondent from entering into the darga to maintain
the sanctity of the Holy Place.
!For Petitioner : Mr.M.M.E.Phillips
For Respondents : Mr.P.Kandasamy
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
:ORDER
The petitioners, namely, A.Sikkandar and Abubukkar, came forward with this petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. that they shall not be harassed by the respondent police nor they shall spoil the sanctity
of the holy place and defile it.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/63953274/ 1
A.Sikkandar vs The Commissioner Of Police on 12 November, 2014
2. The petitioners states that they are pious and deeply religious and are true Musalmans and they
shall not be harassed by the police.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) filed a status report. He had submitted that
there is opposite group. There is civil dispute between both sides. Each side complains against the
other.
4. The learned Government Advocate also submitted that in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12017 of 2014 on
01.07.2014, this Court has directed the respondent police to conduct enquiry in the light of the
recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in LALITA KUMARI VS. GOVT. OF U.P. & OTHERS
(2013 (4) CRIMES 243 (SC)). In the circumstances, to conduct enquiry police has sent summons to
Sikkanthar and his brother, but they have not responded. When the enquiry was conducted, it turn
out that already there is a civil dispute and there exists enmity between the parties and as it does not
disclosed any cognizable offence it was closed.
5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that what is stated by the learned
Government Advocate relates to a different matter/case and the suit in O.S.No.725 of 2013 filed by
the third party also against the petitioner was tried and dismissed recently by the learned District
Munsif, Madurai Taluk.
6. It is seen that in view of the property dispute and other dispute there are enemies to the
petitioners. There is apprehension for him. Petitioners and their family have to be
secured/protected. It is the duty of the law enforcing authority to protect them.
7. As regards issues relating to property including place of worship, it must be adjudicated by a
Competent Court. Criminal Court cannot do that. Police should not be given the role of a Civil Judge
to decide who is the owner of the property. A Judge cannot be a police and vice versa. That is why it
is stated that in civil matters police should not interfere.
7. It is pertinent here to note the submission of the learned Government Advocate that the
petitioners are embroiled in number of F.I.Rs. It has been replied to by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that they will face those cases in accordance with law.
8. In view of the foregoings, petitioners and their family members shall not be harassed by the
police. However, it is emphasised that right to property and the dispute thereon should be
adjudicated by a competent Court in accordance with law.
P.DEVADASS, J.
sj
9. With these observations, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
12.11.2014 Index :Yes Internet :Yes sj To
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/63953274/ 2
A.Sikkandar vs The Commissioner Of Police on 12 November, 2014
1.The Commissioner of Police, O/o. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, South Gate Police Station, Madurai ? 625 001.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.17302 of 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/63953274/ 3
