IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29267 of 2008(H)
1. HAMSA, S/O.LATE MOHAMMED HAJI, AGED 45,
... Petitioner
2. BANSHIRA W/O.HAMSA, AGED 40,
Vs
1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY.
... Respondent
2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY
4. N.C.VARGHESE, AGED 70, MATHASI CHACKO
5. M/S.SKYLINE BUILDERS, SKYLINE HOUSE
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :03/10/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.29267 OF 2008
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioners are husband and wife. They owned two items of
properties having an extent of 35.6 cents and 16.6 cents. Both the
properties were got by the first petitioner from his father. Later, he
settled 50% of the undivided share in that two items of properties in
favour of the second petitioner, who is his wife. The 4th respondent
along with others is the owner of an extent of 86.83 cents of adjacent
land. There is a pathway leading to the property of the petitioners.
The 4th respondent and other owners are also entitled to use that
pathway. The said respondent entered into an arrangement with the
5th respondent, who is a builder and a residential flat has been
constructed there. Now they want to construct boundary wall for their
property. In that process, the petitioners submit, they are encroaching
into the pathway and reducing its width. Therefore, the petitioners
moved the civil court and obtained Exhibit P2 injunction order. Now, it
is alleged that in violation of that injunction order, respondents 4 and
5 are acting. Therefore, the first petitioner has moved the civil court
concerned for prosecuting them. He also filed Exhibit P3
W.P.(C)No.29267/08 -2-
representation before the Circle Inspector of Police pointing out the
alleged trespass by respondents 4 and 5. While so, the Sub Inspector of
Police, the 3rd respondent herein, called the first petitioner to the Police
Station and he was threatened not to cause obstruction to the
respondents 4 and 5 in erecting the compound wall and so he filed Exhibit
P4 representation before the first respondent, pointing out the above
highhanded actions of the Sub Inspector of Police. Thereafter this Writ
Petition is filed, seeking the following reliefs:
(a) Issue appropriate writ or direction directing respondents
1 and 2 to prevent the illegal and highhanded act of the 3rd
respondent and to prevent the harassment;
(b) issue appropriate direction to the 3rd respondent not to
interfere in civil disputes and to prevent violation of Exhibit P2
order of injunction.
2. If respondents 4 and 5 are not respecting Exhibit P2 order and
violating the same, the petitioners can not only move for prosecution of
them, they can also move the Munsiff’s Court, to address the police to
render assistance to the petitioners to enforce the order. If there is such
an order, the 3rd respondent will not dire to act against it. This police
harassment jurisdiction which is essentially a jurisdiction of this Court to
issue a writ to the police against unlawful action is not supposed to be
W.P.(C)No.29267/08 -3-
invoked at the drop of a hat on the allegation of a Sub Inspector of Police
saying something against the petitioners and acts in favour of the party
respondents. It does not enable the petitioners to rush to this Court.
They have to invoke other remedies available to them. In view of the
remedies available to the petitioners, it is unnecessary for this Court to
invoke the writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the
contentions of the petitioners and their right to move other forums for
appropriate reliefs.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn