IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2265 of 2011(G)
1. MOHANACHANDRAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. PRAVEEN M.,
5. RAVEENDRAN PILLAI,
6. SASIKUMAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :27/01/2011
O R D E R
R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
—————————————————-
W.P.(Civil) No.2265 of 2011
—————————————————-
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011
Judgment
Basant, J.
The petitioner has come to this court seeking issue of
directions to respondents 1 to 3 under Article 226 of the
Constitution to ensure that police protection be afforded to the
petitioner for the peaceful enjoyment of his property and against
causing any threat to the life and person of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is the father of the 4th respondent.
Respondent No.6 is the younger brother of the petitioner.
Respondent No.5 is the father-in-law of the 4th respondent. The
wife of the petitioner expired on 21.6.2010. The spouses have
two children, i.e., the 4th respondent and another married son.
Both the children are married and employed. According to the
petitioner, his wife had executed a registered Will dated
27.10.2009. On the strength of that Will, after the death of his
wife, the petitioner is in exclusive possession of the properties
which belonged to his wife. He has his own properties also. The
WPC 2265/2011 2
petitioner is living in the property after the death of his wife. The
4th respondent, the son of the petitioner, is claiming one-third
share in his property. The petitioner was, in these circumstances
obliged to file Ext.P1 suit. The suit is pending. An order of interim
injunction is passed in that suit (Ext.P2) restraining respondents
4 and 5 from trespassing into the property. According to the
petitioner, subsequent to the passing of the order, the party
respondents had taken law into their hands and had
dispossessed the petitioner. The petitioner has already filed
complaint before the court to take action against the party
respondents for violating the order of injunction and also for
issue of directions by the civil court to afford police protection to
the petitioner. Admittedly those petitions are pending and have
not been disposed of.
3. The petitioner now has a grievance that respondents 4 to
6 are causing threat to his life and person. They are not
permitting him to enjoy the fruits of Ext.P2 order. He has a
further grievance that under the influence of respondents 4 to 6,
police are compelling him to withdraw the civil proceedings
initiated by him. The police want him not to claim rights under
WPC 2265/2011 3
the Will executed by his wife. It is, in these circumstances, that
the petitioner has come to this court seeking directions for police
protection against wanton, culpable and violent acts of
respondents 4 to 6 and also for directions to police officials not to
intervene in the civil dispute between the parties.
4. Respondents 4 and 5 had entered appearance through
counsel. According to respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner is not
in possession of the property. According to them, the petitioner is
attempting to steal a march over the party respondents by
making attempt to secure an order for police protection. Petition
seeking directions for police aid to enforce the order of injunction
has already been filed and is pending. Action for alleged violation
of the order of injunction is also pending before the court which
passes Ext.P2 order. At this juncture, it is not necessary or
proper for the police to intervene in the dispute nor is it
necessary for this court to issue any directions to the police. The
petitioner may be directed to seek remedy from the civil court in
the pending petitions for violation of the injunction order and for
enforcement of the order of injunction with the aid of the police.
No directions are necessary to be issued now, contends the
WPC 2265/2011 4
learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5.
5. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for his
submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that the
police have no intention to interfere in the civil dispute between
the parties. If the civil court issues any directions, the same shall
be scrupulously implemented. At this juncture, the police have no
intention to interfere in the civil dispute between the parties. The
learned Government Pleader further submits that it is incorrect to
say that the petitioner was vexed or harassed by the police to
withdraw the civil litigation initiated by him against his son and
others. In these circumstances, this petition may be dismissed,
submits the learned Government Pleader.
6. We do take note of all the relevant circumstances. The
civil court is seized of the matter. Whether there has been
trespass subsequent to the filing of the petition; whether police
aid should be given to enforce the order of injunction etc. will
have to be decided by the civil court in accordance with law. We
are not in these circumstances persuaded to issue any specific
directions in this writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the civil
WPC 2265/2011 5
court may be directed to dispose of the pending petitions for
police aid and for action for violation of the order of injunction
expeditiously. The petitioner can make that request to the court
concerned. We have no reason to assume that the court will not
accept the said request. With the above observation, this petition
is dismissed.
R.BASANT, JUDGE.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
srd WPC 2265/2011 6 WPC 2265/2011 7