(Prayer: Writ Petition (Criminal) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st to 4th respondents herein to provide police protection to the petitioner, its directions/shareholders, its employees, its representatives and any person claiming through or under the petitioner herein, and the petitioner’s property namely all that piece and parcel of lands comprised in Survey Nos. (i)731/2 to extent of 0.35 acres (ii)740/4 to extent of 0.41 acres, (iii)742 to extent of 0.80 acres, (iv)730/1 to extent of 0.36 acres, (v)731/1 to extent of 0.41 acres (vi)732/5 to extent of 0.19 acres, (vii)727 to extent of 0.85 acres, (viii)741/1 to extent of 0.89 acres, (ix)741/2 to extent of 0.14 acres, (x)728 to extent of 1.48 acres, (xi)729/1 to extent of 0.75 acres, (xii)730/2 to extent of 0.04 acres, (xiii)740/1 to extent of 0.58 acres, (xiv)740/2 to extent of 0.29 acres, (xv)740/3 to extent of 0.36 acres, (xvi)740/5 to extent of 0.41 acres, (xvii) 729/2 to extent of 1.00 acres, (xviii)743 to extent of 0.36 acres, situated at Vallur Village, Ponneri Taluk, Minjur Panchayat Union, Tiruvallur District – 600 103.)

1. This writ petition (criminal) has been filed seeking to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to provide police protection to the petitioner, its directors, shareholders, employees, representatives and any person claiming through or under the petitioner herein and the petitioner’s property comprised in Survey Nos. (i)731/2 to an extent of 0.35 acres (ii)740/4 to an extent of 0.41 acres, (iii)742 to an extent of 0.80 acres, (iv)730/1 to an extent of 0.36 acres, (v)731/1 to an extent of 0.41 acres (vi)732/5 to an extent of 0.19 acres, (vii)727 to an extent of 0.85 acres, (viii)741/1 to an extent of 0.89 acres, (ix)741/2 to an extent of 0.14 acres, (x)728 to an extent of 1.48 acres, (xi)729/1 to an extent of 0.75 acres, (xii)730/2 to an extent of 0.04 acres, (xiii)740/1 to an extent of 0.58 acres, (xiv)740/2 to an extent of 0.29 acres, (xv)740/3 to an extent of 0.36 acres, (xvi)740/5 to an extent of 0.41 acres, (xvii) 729/2 to an extent of 1.00 acres and (xviii)743 to an extent of 0.36 acres, situated at Vallur Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the property admeasuring 9.67 acres, comprised in various survey numbers, situated at Vallur Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District belongs to the petitioner company. However, the 5th and 6th respondents, who are the erstwhile Directors of the petitioner company, are attempting to interfere with the possession of the property belonging to the petitioner company. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the respondent police on 12.09.2025. However, till date, the respondent police have not taken any action on the said complaint and the 5th and 6th respondents are continuously threatening and attempting to take illegal possession of the property. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 5th and 6th respondents resigned from the Directorship of the petitioner company as early as on 20.11.2023 and thereafter, one Lingusamy and Dhanapakiyalakshmi were appointed as Directors of Goraman Logistics on 23.11.2023. However, even after resigning from the company’s board, the 5th and 6th respondents have continued to disturb the petitioner company's operation and its possession over the subject property and they also filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(Crl.).No.1138 of 2025 seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the Inspector of Police not to interfere with their possession over the subject property and this Court, vide order dated 17.10.2025, based on the instructions submitted by the police that they will not interfere with the possession of any one unless there is law and order issue, disposed of the said writ petition and this Court also made it clear that as long as the dispute is in respect of a civil right, the police have no right to interfere, except if any criminal offence is committed. Since the 5th and 6th respondents have suppressed certain facts and obtained the said order, the petitioner filed a review petition in Rev.Aplwp.Crl.No.3 of 2025 and this Court, vide order dated 01.12.2025 finding that the 5th and 6th respondents have suppressed certain material facts, had disposed the review petition stating that as far as the civil rights of the parties are concerned, they will have to establish their rights before the civil court where the suit is pending and that merely because the police undertook not to interfere with the dispute, the same will not give license to any one to trespass or dispossess and the rights of the parties have to be decided only in the civil court. He further submitted that, on 08.11.2025, the 5th and 6th respondents have interfered with the petitioner company's possession over the subject property and they have also trespassed into the property and also threatened the Manager of the petitioner company and thereby, the present complaint dated 12.09.2025 has been made.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that pursuant to the order of this Court, on 08.01.2026, the respondent police visited the disputed property and conducted an enquiry with the persons around there and it came to light that the 5th and 6th respondents, along with others, trespassed into the subject property, broke the compound wall, fixed a gate, parked a container inside the property and also installed CCTV cameras. He further submitted that in this regard, the respondent police also verified the statutory records maintained by the Registrar of Companies and the same also clearly demonstrated that the said Lingusamy and Dhanapakiyalakshmi were inducted as the Directors of the petitioner company on 23.11.2023 and the erstwhile Directors, viz., Gowrishankar and Anilkumar have resigned and were removed from Directorship as early as on 20.11.2023. He also submitted that the respondent police are not interfering with the civil rights of the parties and they are concerned only with the law and order problem and the enquiry reveals that the 5th and 6th respondents have trespassed into the subject property and caused damage to the compound wall and also placed a container inside the premises.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th and 6th respondents submitted that the 5th and 6th respondents have borrowed money from the said Lingusamy and his wife, Dhanapakiyalakshmi and to that effect, a Memorandum of Understanding dated 23.11.2023 was also entered into between the 5th and 6th respondents and the said Lingusamy and his wife, Dhanapakiyalakshmi and the company's shares were transferred for security purpose. However, when the 5th and 6th respondents intended to repay the principal amount, the said Lingusamy and his wife, Dhanapakiyalakshmi refused to accept the same and refused to transfer the shares of the company. He also submitted that the possession of the subject property is still with the 5th and 6th respondents.

6. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. This Court, vide order dated 06.01.2026, after hearing the learned counsel on either side, directed the petitioner company to appear for enquiry on 08.01.2026.

8. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 produced the status report filed by one M.Velumani, Inspector of Police, E-3 Minjur Police Station, Avadi. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the said status report is extracted hereunder:

                     "8. I further submit that, in compliance with the order of this Hon'ble High Court dated 07.01.2026, the respondent police issued summons to the writ petitioner and the complainant to appear before the respondent police station for enquiry on 08.01.2026 at about 10.00 a.m.

                     9. I further submit that on 08.01.2026, the writ petitioner along with the complainant appeared before the respondent police for enquiry. The respondent police conducted an enquiry with them and recorded their statements.

                     10. I further submit that during the enquiry, it was stated that previously Gowrishankar and Anilkumar were Directors of the petitioner company, Viz. Gorman Logistics. While they were the Directors, they intended to purchase 9.67 acres of land for a sum of Rs. 12,50,00,000/- through auction from Prithvi ARC Company, and paid an initial amount of Rs.3,12,50,000/- to the said company. However, they failed to pay the balance amount and thereafter approached the Mr. D.Lingasamy and Mrs.L.Dhanabakkialakshmi for financial assistance. The petitioner subsequently purchased 30,000 shares in Gorman Logistics.

                     11. I submit that upon enquiry and verification of records, it was revealed that the counter-petitioners, namely Gowrishankar and Anilkumar, were relieved from the post of Directors of the company on 20.11.2023, and Lingusamy and Dhanapakiyalakshmi were appointed as Directors of Gorman Logistics on 23.11.2023, and they had purchased 30,000 shares in the petitioner company, Gorman Logistics. The same was duly registered with the Registrar of Companies (ROC). Further, subsequent to the induction of the said Lingusamy and Dhanapakiyalakshmi as Directors of the petitioner Company, the land at Vallur was purchased by the petitiobner company, Gorman Logistics on 24.11.2023 from Prithvi Asset Reconstruction and Securitisation Company, and the Certificate of Sale was registered as Document No. 10133 of 2023 on 24.11.2023 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Thiruvottiyur. In the said document, Dhanapakiyalakshmi signed in her capacity as Director of Gorman Logistics. It was also revealed that a building and a compound wall were already in existence at the time of purchase of the land from Prithvi ARC.

                     12. I further submit that on 08.01.2026, the respondent police visited the disputed land and conducted an enquiry with (i) Elangovan and (ii) Appanraj, who were working as security personnel in the nearby locality and recorded their statements. The said witnesses stated that on 08.11.2025, the respondents 5 and 6, namely Gowrishankar and Anilkumar, along with others, broke the compound wall and attempted to trespass into the complainant's land. They further stated that the complainant was abused in filthy language and threatened, and when the same was questioned by the complainant, a dispute arose between the complainant and the counter-petitioners.

                     13. I further submit that, during the course of enquiry, it was revealed that the counter-petitioners, namely respondent Nos.5 and 6, Gowrishankar and Anilkumar, along with others, had trespassed into the land, broken the compound wall, fixed a gate, parked a container inside the land, and installed CCTV cameras therein.

                     14. Based on the materials on record, it appears that there is no dispute with regard to the title of the subject land, which admittedly stands in the name of the petitioner company. The subject property has been purchased by the petitioner company through a registered sale certificate dated 24.11.2023 from Prithvi Asset Reconstruction and Securitisation Company, and not by any individual in his personal capacity. The records show that the ownership of the land vests exclusively with the company, no individual has any independent or personal right, title, or interest over the said property. Therefore, the present complaint lodged by the petitioner does not pertain to the title or ownership of the subject land, which is unequivocally vested with the petitioner company.

                     15. The dispute appears to be relating to the control and management of the petitioner company. In this regard, the statutory records maintained by the Registrar of Companies clearly demonstrate that the said Lingusamy and Dhanapakiyalakshmi were inducted as a Directors of the petitioner company on 23.11.2023, prior to the purchase of the subject property, whereas the erstwhile directors, namely the counter-petitioners Gowrishankar and Anilkumar, had already resigned and were relieved from the directorship on 20.11.2023, even before the purchase of the land. Consequently, at the time of purchase and thereafter, the company was lawfully represented by the said Lingusamy and Dhanapakiyalakshmi and the other duly appointed director. Unless and until the counterpetitioners secure any order from a competent court reinstating them as directors of the company, they have no manner of right to claim control over the affairs of the company or the subject land. As the land belongs to the petitioner company, the same can only be controlled and represented by the company acting through its existing and lawful director, Lingusamy and Dhanapakiyalakshmi.

                     16. It was further revealed that the counter-petitioners trespassed into the land, broke the compound wall, abused the petitioner in filthy language, and threatened him."

9. At the cost of repetition, it is worth pointing out that in the earlier orders passed by this Court, this Court had made it clear that as far as the civil rights of the parties is concerned, they have to approach the civil court. This Court had also made it clear that merely because the respondent police undertook not to interfere with the dispute, the same will not give license to any one to trespass or dispossess and the rights of the parties have to be decided only before the civil court.

10. Now, a report has been filed by the respondent police, wherein, it has been stated that upon conducting enquiry it has come to light that the 5th and 6th respondents have trespassed into the subject property and caused damage to the compound wall and also placed a container in the subject property.

11. In view of the above, this Court directs the respondent police to ensure that no law and order problem exists in the subject property and it is left open to the respondent police to proceed in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that the observations made herein above are only for disposal of this writ petition (criminal) and it will not have any bearing in any other proceedings pending before the Civil Court concerned.

12. With the above directions and observation, this writ petition (criminal) stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.