S.Vidhya vs. The Commissioner Of Police

Facts

The petitioner, owner of 'Atchaya Speciality Hospital', sought police protection from the Madurai City Police. She leased a building for her hospital from the 3rd respondent, Dr. R. Manorama Jeyaraj, paying a deposit and monthly rent. A dispute arose regarding the occupancy of the basement by one Paramasivam, and the rent was subsequently increased. The petitioner alleged threats from the 4th respondent, son of the 3rd respondent, and from respondents 5 & 6, who claimed to have purchased the building. The petitioner also alleged that the 3rd respondent lodged a caveat petition and threatened her. On December 1, 2020, the petitioner claimed 'goondas' forcibly replaced her hospital's name board with that of respondents 5 & 6, and that the police were acting in favour of respondents 5 & 6. The petitioner filed a complaint with the police, receiving a receipt for CSR No. 377 of 2020.

Held

The Court held that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents is fundamentally a landlord-tenant dispute. It was observed that if any party is aggrieved, they must approach the appropriate civil forum for their remedy. The Court noted the submission of the Additional Public Prosecutor that the complaint has been closed. The Court further stated that even if the petitioner/tenant had not paid the rent, the 3rd respondent/landlord should approach the Rent Control Court for eviction. The police, at any stretch, cannot interfere in such matters or compel the petitioner to vacate the premises. Therefore, the Criminal Original Petition was disposed of with the direction that civil remedies should be pursued.

Key Issues

1. Whether the police are obligated to provide protection to the petitioner in a landlord-tenant dispute, as per Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that she is facing threats to her life and property from the private respondents and that the police are not acting on her complaint, necessitating intervention under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for adequate police protection. Revenue/State's arguments: The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that based on the petitioner's complaint, CSR No. 377 of 2020 was assigned. An enquiry was conducted where the petitioner gave an undertaking to vacate the premises by March 1, 2021, which the 3rd respondent agreed to. Consequently, the complaint was closed.