IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 32404 of 2008(G) 1. A.M. VARGHESE AND ANOTHER ... Petitioner Vs 1. SUB INSPECT OF POLIC, MUSUEM POLICE ... Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJKUMAR For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI Dated :04/11/2008 O R D E R K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.32404 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioners are husband and wife. They submit, the first
petitioner and his daughter are in possession of two flats owned by
M/s Simi Movies Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. under a licence arrangement.
At the relevant time, Dr.Abdul Jabbar was the Managing Director of
that Company. Later, the petitioners herein entered into an
agreement for purchase of those two flats. They claim, substantial
amounts have already been paid in advance towards the price of the
flats. While so, Dr.Abdul Jabbar died. The 3rd respondent claims,
she is the second wife of the said person. The 4th respondent is her
brother. Asserting right over the two flats, the said persons have
come to the picture. They are threatening and harassing the
petitioners. They are engaging muscle men to throw them out from
the flat. Earlier, when the 3rd respondent and others tried to attack
and kill the first petitioner, he moved this Court, seeking police
protection. This Court after hearing both sides passed Exhibit P1
interim order ordering protection to his life. Later, the said Writ
Petition was disposed of by Exhibit P2 judgment, making that interim
order absolute. Against the efforts made by respondents 3 and 4 for
evicting the petitioners by use of force, they have already moved the
civil court and obtained Exhibit P3 interim order injuncting them from
trespassing into those flats or doing anything against the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of them by the petitioners or commit any
waste there. They are also injuncted from vacating the petitioners by
use of force. But, undaunted by the said interim order, respondents 3
and 4 are continuing their illegal activities to evict the petitioner. So,
he filed Exhibit P6 representation before the Sub Inspector of Police,
Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. Two prayers are made
in this Writ Petition. One is for implementing the judgment of this
Court, Exhibit P2. The second prayer is to register a crime and
investigate the case, against whom, the petitioners have filed petitions.
2. If the judgment of this Court is not respected by the police,
the remedy of the petitioners is to move contempt application before
this Court. There cannot be any further direction from this Court to
the police to implement this Court’s judgment. If, based on the
information lodged by the petitioners, even when they disclose
cognizable offences, the Sub Inspector of Police is not registering a
crime and investigating the same, the remedy of the petitioners lies in
moving the superior Police Officer or moving the concerned criminal
court under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. In view of the decision of the
Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008(1) KLT 724), this
Court is not justified in issuing any direction as prayed for by the
petitioner to register a crime and investigate the same. In view of the
above position, no relief can be granted in this Writ Petition.
Accordingly, it is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the
petitioner and his right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.