IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26201 of 2008(T)
1. JOSEPH JOHN,AGED 47 YEARS,S/O.JOHN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
4. K.B.PANKAJAVALLY,
5. SASINDRAN.T.K.,
For Petitioner :SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :04/09/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.26201 OF 2008
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioner submits, he purchased 12 cents of land in
Ponnurunni Village. Respondents 4 and 5 are the owners of the
neighbouring property. He constructed a compound wall to segregate
that property from their property. He submits, in 1997, the said
respondents destroyed the compound wall. The petitioner filed a
complaint before the District Collector. The District Collector directed
the Taluk Surveyor to survey the property and find out whether there
is any encroachment. Based on the survey conducted, the Taluk
Surveyor submitted Exhibit P2 report. As per the report, it is
submitted that the petitioner has constructed the compound wall in his
own property only. Thereafter, the respondents 4 and 5 filed a civil
suit seeking various reliefs against the petitioner in 1997. It was
dismissed for default on 21.3.2006. The petitioner submits, he has not
received any notice in the application for restoration of that suit. While
so, on 21.8.2008. he has been served with Exhibit P4 notice calling
upon him to appear before the Sub Inspector of Police, Palarivattom on
W.P.(C)No.26201/08 -2-
22.8.2008. The petitioner appeared on 26.8.2008. Then he was taken to
the disputed property by the Sub Inspector of Police along with a
contingent of policemen. He was asked to dig his property to find out
whether the roots of the coconut tree which is standing in his property
are in fact in his property or in the neighbouring property of respondents
4 and 5. The petitioner refused to oblige. Again he was asked to appear
before the Sub Inspector of Police on 27.8.2008. In the above
background, the petitioner moved the Commissioner of Police by filing
Exhibit P6 pointing out the action of the Sub Inspector of Police
interfering in a civil dispute. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed
O.S.No.1101/08 against respondents 4 and 5 seeking to restrain them
from trespassing into his property. The petitioner submits, in view of the
incessant harassment from the Sub Inspector of Police, he was
constrained to file this Writ Petition. Even after the filing of the Writ
Petition, he has been served with Exhibit P8 notice asking him to appear
before the Sub Inspector of Police on 1.9.2008. Respondents 4 and 5 are
highly influential persons and under their influence, police are after him,
it is submitted. So, the petitioner prays, appropriate directions may be
issued to the 3rd respondent not to harass him.
2. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted
that the 3rd respondent received a complaint from respondents 4 and 5. A
W.P.(C)No.26201/08 -3-
copy of that complaint is produced by the 4th respondent in his counter
affidavit as Exhibit R4(a). As per that complaint, when respondents 4
and 5 tried to pluck coconuts from the coconut tree standing in their
property, the security guards of the petitioner obstructed the same and
abused them. So, seeking redressal of their grievances, Exhibit R4(a)
was filed. In connection with the inquiry into the said petition, the
petitioner was summoned to the police station, it is submitted.
3. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed a counter affidavit dealing
with the averments in the Writ Petition. They denied the allegations
against them that they have influenced the police to take action against
the petitioner.
4. The dispute involved in this case is a civil dispute which can be
settled only by the competent civil court. The police have no role
whatsoever to play in this. We record the submission of the learned
Government Pleader that the police have no intention whatsoever to
harass the petitioner. We feel that the registration of a petition and
summoning the petitioner to the police station repeatedly on the
allegation that his security guards have abused respondents 4 and 5 are
unwarranted. Even assuming that those allegations are correct and those
allegations disclose some cognizable offences, action can be taken only
against the security guards. So, unless the petitioner’s presence is
W.P.(C)No.26201/08 -4-
required in connection with any crime registered by the police, he shall
not be summoned to the police station in connection with the
investigation into Exhibit R4(a) petition.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn