{"id":251021,"date":"2021-07-08T18:00:37","date_gmt":"2021-07-08T12:30:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=251021"},"modified":"2021-07-09T09:19:32","modified_gmt":"2021-07-09T03:49:32","slug":"lgbtqia-community","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/08\/lgbtqia-community\/","title":{"rendered":"Madras HC | Police protection for a member of LGBTQIA+ Community on having apprehensions of honour killing on receiving threats from family\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"

Madras High Court: <\/strong>M. Nirmal Kumar, J., directed police protection to a member of the LGBTQIA+ Community who had apprehension of being subjected to honour killing.<\/p>\n

Member of LGBTQIA+ Community<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Present criminal petition was filed to seek police protection as the petitioner had received frequent life threats from her family members since the time, she disclosed that she was a queer person belonging to the LGBTQIA+ Community.<\/p>\n

Petitioners\u2019 father’s brothers sent the petitioner an FIR filed against her for \u2018women missing\u2019 even after knowing the fact that petitioner had left home on her own in order to protect herself.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Further, it was stated that the petitioner’s apprehension is that her family members may resort to honour killing or adopt other tactics to cause grievous physical harm to her.<\/p>\n

In view of the above background, she sought police protection.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision<\/span><\/h3>\n

Bench noted that the petitioner admitted the fact that she belongs to the LGBTQIA+ Community and was living with her partner now, though on earlier occasions they were forcibly separated.<\/p>\n

High Court stated that considering the precariousness, in which such people are made to lead their life, the guidelines to police have already been issued in the decision of this Court in S. Sushma v. Commissioner of Police<\/em>, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2096.<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Hence, in the present matter, Police was directed to not casue any harassment and give appropriate protection for the safety and life of petitioner following the above-stated decision of this Court.<\/p>\n

In view of the above criminal original petition was disposed of. [X v. State of T.N., Crl. OP No. 10880 of 2021, decided on 25-06-2021]<\/p>\n

\n

Advocates before the Court:<\/strong><\/p>\n

For Petitioner: V. Chethana<\/p>\n

For Respondent: A. Damodaran, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)<\/p>\n

\n

Read More:<\/span><\/h3>\n

Madras HC Judge “removes Lordship’s hat” for framing guidelines for proper recognition of LGBTQIA+ rights, acknowledges “gurus” for pulling him out of darkness of ignorance: Read detailed case report<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n