Murugadoss moves HC seeking police protection

He is facing threat from Darbar distributors

February 07, 2020 01:13 am | Updated 05:08 am IST - CHENNAI

CHENNAI : TAMILNADU : 01/01/2020 : FOR METROPLUS : Film director AR Murugadoss during an an interview to The Hindu. Photo: K. Pichumani/ The Hindu

CHENNAI : TAMILNADU : 01/01/2020 : FOR METROPLUS : Film director AR Murugadoss during an an interview to The Hindu. Photo: K. Pichumani/ The Hindu

Film director A.R. Murugadoss has approached the Madras High Court, seeking police protection for himself. He has claimed that a few distributors of the recent Rajinikanth-starrer Darbar are constantly intimidating, insulting and annoying him at his residence, as well as office, by claiming to have suffered losses due to a bad run of the movie in the box office.

Justice P. Rajamanickam on Thursday directed Additional Public Prosecutor M. Mohamed Riyaz to obtain instructions from the Chennai Commissioner of Police, as well as inspectors of police stations in Teynampet and Virugambakkam, where the director’s office and residence are respectively located. He adjourned the case to Monday for further hearing.

In the direction petition filed through his counsel Vijayan Subramanian, the director said that he had commenced his career as an assistant director in 1993, and had become a director in 2001, with Ajith-starrer Dheena .

This was followed by his second directorial venture Ramana, starring Vijayakant, in which he created social awareness on corruption, red tapism and inefficiency.

After listing out his other blockbuster movies such as Ghajini (2005), the Hindi remake of Ghajini (2008), Ezham Arivu (2011), Thuppaki (2012), its Hindi version Holiday , Kathi (2014), Hindi movie Akira (2016), Spyder (2017) and Sarkar (2018), the petitioner claimed to be a unique director, who not just entertains, but also delivers a strong social message.

Being intimidated

Stating that he got the opportunity to direct Rajinikanth-starrer Darbar last year, he said his work in the movie was limited to the creative part of it, whereas the entire business of the movies was handled only by Lyca Productions. Despite knowing it well, some of the distributors were unnecessarily intimidating him, the petitioner complained.

He claimed that the distributors tresspassed into his office and threatened his staff. They also gathered outside his residence, at a posh apartment complex in Saligramam, within Virugambakkam police station limits, and started abusing him with foul language, he alleged, and urged the court to order police protection to his office as well as residence.

He further insisted on deputing a personal security officer “to safeguard his life.”

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.