IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13820 of 2010(B)
1. JALAJA, D/O.LASTE SUKUMARAN,
... Petitioner
2. SAJITH, S/O.SALIM,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. SUSHEELA, AGED 56 YEARS,
5. RAMESHAN, AGED 54 YEARS,
6. THULASI, AGED 52 YEARS,
7. SUSHEELAN, AGED 45 YEARS,
8. SHEEBA, AGED 39 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :06/05/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ
-------------------
W.P.(C).13820/2010
Dated-------------------- 2010
this the 6th day of May,
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
The allegation in the writ petition is that at the instance of
respondents 4 to 8, the 2nd respondent is interfering in the civil
dispute between the petitioner and the party respondents. Both
respondents 2 and 3 as also party respondents denied this
allegation. Even otherwise, it is not open to the 2nd respondent
or the 3rd respondent to interfere in any civil dispute between the
private persons and we clarify that position.
2. The other grievance of the petitioner is that at the instance
of respondents 4 to 8, the 2nd respondent forcefully took away
the original of Ext.P2 settlement deed and that the same should
be directed to be returned. The allegation that the document
was taken away by the 2nd respondent is specifically denied by
the learned Government Pleader and therefore no direction as
W.P.(C).13820/10
2
sought for can be granted. Be that as it may, we find that this
allegation has been raised in Ext.P6 complaint is filed before the
3rd respondent and therefore, we direct the 3rd respondent to
enquire into the allegation in Ext.P6 and take appropriate
action.
Petitioners may produce a copy of this judgment before the
3rd respondent for compliance.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC,
Judge
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Judge
mrcs