Madras High Court
WP CRL./2367/2026 of K.Shoba Vs The State Rep. by, The Superintendent of Police on 14 October 2026
WP Crl. No. 2367 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
WP Crl. No. 2367 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012158902026}
K.Shoba
W/o Late. Kamal Chand,
No.4, Ramanujam Street,
Madurantakam,
Chengalpattu.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Rep. by, The Superintendent of Police Maduranthakam, Chengalpattu District.
2. The Inspector of Police
Maduranthakam Police Station,
Chengalpattu District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to give Police Protection to the Petitioner and pass such further or other order or orders as may be necessary in the interest of justice.
For Petitioner(s):
Ms.S.Sridevi
For Respondent(s):
Mr.Arun Anbumani
Addl. Public Prosecutor
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Ms.S.Sridevi reports that as the petitioner is a widow, she would not be in a position to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- and avail security from the State of Tamil Nadu. Ms.S.Sridevi argues that where the petitioner is not in a position to pay
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 04:36:56 pm )
WP Crl. No. 2367 of 2026
for the security, this Court in R.Afzal v. State of Tamil Nadu in WP.15176 of 2022 dated 25.08.2023 had directed that the State must provide security at its cost for such persons.
2. I have carefully considered submissions of Ms.S.Sridevi. I have gone through the security assessment report submitted by Mr.Arun Anbumani.
3. The cause of action for the present writ petition is that the petitioner came to be assaulted by three unknown persons on 25.08.2026. It is the perception of the petitioner that the attackers had been engaged by her in-laws due to a pre-existing family dispute. Earlier, the petitioner had lodged a complaint in FIR No.84 of 2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent police. The police had investigated the matter and final report had also been filed by them. Cognizance has been taken by the Judicial Magistrate Court at Madhuranthagam and the case is now pending in C.C.No.407 of 2026.
4. While the case was pending, the petitioner alleged that her in-laws had set up three persons to come over to the pawn broking business premises that the petitioner took over from her late husband and mercilessly attacked her.
5. A perusal of the security assessment report submitted by Mr.Arun Anbumani shows that both are unconnected events. The police have nabbed the
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 04:36:56 pm )
WP Crl. No. 2367 of 2026
concerned individuals on the very next day. On interrogation, it has come to light that the assailants were aggrieved over the non-return of jewels by the writ petitioner. Ms.S.Sridevi vehemently urges that the petitioner fears that she may be done away and on account of such incidents, her daughter has gone to deep depression.
6. In the larger picture of things, the presence of the police in itself is not sufficient security for the petitioner. It is not for the Court to substitute its opinion on the security assessment that has been made by the police, unless and until the same is arbitrary or so unreasonable that no reasonable person would have come to the said conclusion.
7. As the police have already placed a “patta book” and are keeping a watch on the petitioner’s premises, both in the morning and the evening, I do not find the necessity to grant her the police protection as prayed for.
8. Insofar as Afzal’s case is concerned, a careful perusal of the directions given by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.Anand Venkatesh indicates that the Government must undertake the expenditure of the police protection if only in the assessment of the threat perception, the petitioner faces some security risk. That situation does not exist today.
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 04:36:56 pm )
WP Crl. No. 2367 of 2026
9. The writ petition is dismissed. Needless to add, the police shall continue to keep a watch on the petitioner’s premises. In case, there is a change in the security position, they shall afford her necessary security. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KAL
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 04:36:56 pm )
WP Crl. No. 2367 of 2026
To
1. The State Rep. by, The Superintendent of Police Maduranthakam, Chengalpattu District.
2. The Inspector of Police Maduranthakam Police Station, Chengalpattu District.
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 04:36:56 pm )
WP Crl. No. 2367 of 2026
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. KAL WP Crl. No. 2367 of 2026 14-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 04:36:56 pm )