Sasikala Pushpa And Others Petitioner(S) v. State Of Tamil Nadu (S).

Factual and Procedural Background

The court heard the matter and issued notice. Counsel for the respondent-State appeared and accepted notice. The court directed that a counter affidavit be filed within four weeks, with any rejoinder to be filed within two weeks thereafter, and ordered the matter to be posted after completion of pleadings.

Pendente lite, the court granted interim protection to the petitioners in relation to two criminal cases: (1) Crime No. 5 of 2016 registered in All Women Police Station, Pudukkottai, Tuticorin District, and (2) Crime No. 1331 of 2016 registered with K. Pudhur jurisdictional Police Station. The petitioners were directed to appear before the investigating officer in the first case on Monday, 3 October 2016, and in the second case on Friday, 7 October 2016.

At this stage, learned senior counsel for the petitioners sought police protection to ensure their security while they cooperate with the investigation. Learned senior counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the State Government would take all necessary steps to protect the petitioners against any harm, and the court recorded that submission.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Submissions

• The petitioners will join the investigation on all dates fixed and will cooperate fully with the investigating officers.
• Police protection is sought to ensure their security so that no harm is done to them during the pendency of the investigations.

Respondent-State's Submissions

• The State Government will take all necessary steps to protect the petitioners against any harm.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court issued procedural directions to progress the matter: notice was issued, timelines for filing a counter affidavit and rejoinder were fixed, and the case was to be listed after pleadings were complete. Pending that stage, the court provided interim protection to the petitioners in relation to two specified criminal cases. To balance investigative needs with interim protection, the petitioners were directed to appear before the respective investigating officers on specific dates for each case. When the petitioners expressed security concerns, the court recorded the respondent-State’s assurance that protection would be provided against any harm. The order thus rests on ensuring cooperation with the investigation while safeguarding the petitioners’ security through the State’s undertaking.

Holding and Implications

NOTICE ISSUED; INTERIM PROTECTION GRANTED; DIRECTIONS FOR APPEARANCE; STATE'S ASSURANCE OF PROTECTION RECORDED; MATTER TO BE POSTED AFTER PLEADINGS ARE COMPLETE.

Implications: The petitioners receive interim protection in relation to Crime No. 5 of 2016 and Crime No. 1331 of 2016, subject to their mandatory appearances before the investigating officers on 3 October 2016 and 7 October 2016, respectively. The State is to ensure their safety. The parties must adhere to the set timeline for counter and rejoinder filings, after which the matter will be listed. The order is interlocutory and sets no broader precedent beyond the immediate directions issued.