IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32853 of 2008(J)
1. KARTHYAYANI AMMA, AGED 68 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NATTUKAL
3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, OTTAPALAM.
5. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR,
6. SAYED, S/O. HYDROSE, CHELAKKODAN HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :28/11/2008
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.32853 OF 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a
direction to respondents 2 and 3 who are police officers to
render adequate protection to the petitioner, so that, she can
tap and also slaughter the rubber trees standing in the property
having an extent of 88 cents of land comprised in Survey
No.3/1, 2 and 3 of Edathanattukara Amsom, Desom of
Mannarkkad Taluk and other properties shown in the schedule
of Ext.P3 plaint in O.S.No.120/2005 of the Munsiff Magistrate’s
Court, Mannarkkad. It was a suit filed by the 5th respondent
claiming partition of the plaint schedule property. The said suit
is pending. In the said suit, I.A.No.620/2005 was filed, seeking
a direction to restrain the petitioner from entering into the
properties. That I.A. was dismissed. The petitioner submits, he
has already obtained Ext.P6 judgment in his favour in
O.S.No.98/2005 on the file of the Munsiff Magistrate’s Court,
Mannarkkad, restraining the defendants therein, who are
W.P.(C) No.32853/2008 2
respondents 5 and 6 herein and their workmen trespassing into
the plaint schedule property and also from cutting and removing
rubber trees from there. The schedule property therein is item
No.4 in Ext.P3 plaint. The petitioner points out, the order in
I.A.No.620/2005 in O.S.No.120/2005 was confirmed by the
appellate court, as per Ext.P9. Earlier when the petitioner was
prevented from entering into the aforementioned property by the
respondents 5 and 6, she preferred Ext.P13 petition before the
Sub Inspector of Police and Ext.P14 petition before the Sub
Inspector of Police, Vanitha Cell, Palakkad. In those
representations, she has prayed for protection to her life and
property. Alleging that the police did not take any action, this
writ petition is filed.
2. We feel that in the civil dispute between the petitioner
and her son and another, the appropriate remedy for her is to
seek further orders from the civil court. The civil court can direct
the police, if found necessary, to extend protection to enforce its
orders. We feel that the police cannot be asked by this Court to
interfere in favour of one side or other. In this jurisdiction, we
W.P.(C) No.32853/2008 3
are concerned only with the breach of duty of the police to the
petitioner. If the police have the power and authority to suomoto
go into the papers presented by the petitioner and go after her
and stand guard for her as demanded, then we will be justified in
issuing appropriate directions to the police as prayed for by the
petitioner. We find no statute authorises the police to act in that
manner.
In view of the above position, this writ petition is dismissed
without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and her
right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. But, this
judgment will not affect the powers of the police to take action in
accordance with law, if any cognizable offence is reported.
(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
ps