Madras High Court
Criminal Procedure and EvidenceAdministrative and Public Law

Protection petition closed after police undertook to provide protection upon receipt of a specific complaint.

P.Ganesan vs The State of Tamilnadu

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: September 24, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Protection petition closed after police undertook to provide protection upon receipt of a specific complaint.. P.Ganesan vs The State of Tamilnadu. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner, P. Ganesan, filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking a direction to the police authorities to provide adequate protection to his life and the lives and limbs of his family members, based on his representation dated 2 September 2026.

Source reference: p.4

The State submitted that the petitioner’s son was involved in a case under Section 302 IPC and had been released on bail.

Source reference: p.5, para.2

It was further submitted that, since there was a perceived threat to the petitioner’s son, the police were monitoring the petitioner and his family, and that protection would be provided upon receipt of any specific complaint.

Source reference: p.5, para.2
02

Issues

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction under Section 528 BNSS requiring the police to provide adequate protection to him and his family members.

Source reference: p.4

Whether, in light of the police submission that the family was being monitored and that protection would be provided upon receipt of a specific complaint, any further judicial direction was necessary.

Source reference: p.5, paras.2–3
03

Law Applied

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita empowers the High Court to pass orders necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law.

Source reference: no citation

In a petition seeking police protection, the Court may consider the police authorities’ assessment of the threat and the measures already undertaken.

Source reference: no citation

The reference to Section 302 IPC concerned the petitioner’s son’s criminal involvement and was not an issue adjudicated upon in the present proceedings.

Source reference: p.5, para.2
04

Reasoning

The Court considered the State’s submission that the police were already watching the petitioner and his family because of the alleged threat arising from the petitioner’s son’s involvement in a murder case and his release on bail.

Source reference: p.5, para.2

The police further assured the Court that protection would be provided if any specific complaint was lodged.

Source reference: p.5, para.2

As the authorities had indicated that preventive monitoring was ongoing and that appropriate protection would be extended upon a concrete complaint, the Court found no need to issue any additional direction under Section 528 BNSS.

Source reference: p.5, paras.2–3
05

Holding

The Court recorded the submission of the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner and his family were being monitored and that police protection would be provided upon receipt of a specific complaint.

On that basis, the Criminal Original Petition was closed, without issuing any further direction.

Source reference: p.5, para.3
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231

Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

P.GanesanvsThe State of Tamilnadu

Madras High Court · September 24, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment