IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20378 of 2008(A)
1. A.JOHN JUSTIN RAJAMANI, AGED 55 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. ELIZABATH RAJAMANI, AGED 55 YEARS,
3. JUSTIN SYLAS, AGED 29 YEARS,
Vs
1. SASI, S/O.LATE PALRAJ, BUILDING NO.
... Respondent
2. SURESH, S/O.SASI, BUILDING NO.
3. PHILOMINA, W/O.SASI, BUILDING NO.
4. BINU PAPPACHAN, CABLE OPERATOR,
5. LENIN, CABLE OPERATOR,
6. VIJAY, CABLE OPERATOR, S/O.SAROJA,
7. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
8. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
9. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM
For Respondent :SRI.N.M.VARGHESE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :31/07/2008
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ
==============================
W.P.(C)NO. 20378 OF 2008
============================
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF JULY 2008
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair,J.
The petitioners 1 and 2 are husband and wife. The third
petitioner is their son. The first petitioner is a retired
Headmaster and they were leading a peaceful life. The third
petitioner owns five cents of land comprised in Survey No.917/1
of K.D.H.Village in Devikulam Taluk. He has constructed a
building there. The first respondent owns an adjacent plot of
land having an extent of five cents in the very same survey
number. He was residing there in the building constructed by
him. Recently he started construction of a separate building in
his remaining land at the eastern side between the buildings
belonging to him and the third petitioner. It is submitted that
the construction is made abutting the boundary of the third
petitioner. To prevent any legal action from the part of the
WPC. 20378/2008 -2-
petitioners against construction, the first respondent moved the
civil court and obtained an ex parte order of status quo. On the
strength of the status quo order, the first respondent proceeded
with the construction. On the motion made by the third
petitioner, the civil court in the suit filed by the first respondent
appointed a commissioner to inspect the property and file a
report. When the commissioner visited the property, the party
respondents herein caused obstruction and manhandled the
petitioners. They have filed a complaint before the police. The
police, strangely, have registered a crime on the basis of the
information lodged by the party respondents against the
petitioners. The complaint filed by the petitioners has been taken
as the basis for registering a counter case against the party
respondents.
2. The petitioners apprehend threat to their life from the
part of the party respondents. So, they have filed a petition
before the police. Alleging that the police did not take any
effective action, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate
reliefs. The petitioners also have a case that there was
WPC. 20378/2008 -3-
subsequent attack on them by the party respondents. The party
respondents have also come to the shop run by the petitioners
and created problem there. The girl working in that shop was
also threatened, it is alleged.
3. Respondents 1 to 6 have filed a counter affidavit denying
the allegations against them. They pointed out that based on
the information lodged by them, a crime has been registered
against the petitioners.
4. The police have filed a statement as directed by this
Court in which it is stated that the petitioners have closed a
pathway, which was being used by the general public. The same
is the root cause of the problem. The petitioners, in answer,
would submit that the allegations made against them are
unfounded and the crime registered against them is also based
on false information. This will be evident from the statement in
the crime registered against them. As per the F.I. statement it
was the petitioners who attacked the party respondents. But in
the counter affidavit it is stated that musclemen were employed
by the petitioners to attack the party respondents.
WPC. 20378/2008 -4-
We heard the learned counsel on both sides. Having
regard to the nature of the allegations and counter allegations,
we feel that the petitioners have to move the competent civil
court or the criminal court to redress their grievance. But
needless to say, if any information regarding cognizable offence
is reported, the police shall take appropriate action in accordance
with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.C. HARI RANI
JUDGE
ks.