Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan asked the RDO to conduct an enquiry by issuing notice to the village headmen and pass appropriate orders within 12 weeks. The court also directed the police to complete the investigation in a case registered based on the man's complaint and to give him police protection.

The man had approached the court seeking direction to the Superintendent of Police (Mayiladuthurai District) to investigate into his complaint and to grant police protection to him and his brother to reside at their house in Kuthalam Taluk.

The petitioner informed the court that after he performed an inter-caste marriage, the village headmen had condemned his actions and locked his house, forcing him and his family to stay outside the village. It was submitted that the village headmen were not permitting the petitioner or his family to enter the village.

Following this, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the police under Section 296(b) [obscene acts and songs] , 127(2) [wrongful confinement], 324(4) [mischief], and 351(2) [criminal intimidation] of the BNS against the village headmen.

While the investigation was ongoing, the village headmen once again prevented the petitioner and his family from entering his house and the village, it is alleged. Thus, he had lodged another complaint with the Tahsildar. Though the Tahsildar called for a peace committee meeting, the village headmen did not appear for the same, it is claimed. He then orally instructed the village to permit the petitioner to stay in his house. However, since this instruction was not obeyed, the petitioner approached the court.

Considering the circumstances, the court directed the RDO and the police to conduct an enquiry and also ordered police protection to the petitioner and his family.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. B. Jawahar

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. R. Ganesh Kumar Counsel for Government, Mr. M. R. Elavarasan

Case Title: Pazhaniyappan v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 302

Case No: WP Crl. No. 1178 of 2025