IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 28TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 24302 of 2011(K) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- V.R. SADASIVAN, S/O. RAGHAVA MENON, AGED 54 YEARS, RAJAMANDIRAM, KINASSERY POST, KINASSERY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPECIAL BRANCH, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 4. THE A.S.I. POLICE, SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 5. BHUVANESWARI, W/O. THARANADHAN, KRISHNASADAN, NEAR WELCARE HOSPITAL, PALLIPPURAM POST, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 6. A. REGHUNATH, S/O. THARANADHAN, KRISHNASADAN, NEAR WELCARE HOSPITAL, PALLIPPURAM POST, PALAKKAD - 678 001. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.24302/2011 K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT-P1 -TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO. 855/2010 PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD. EXHIBIT-P2- TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S NO. 855/2010. EXHIBIT-P3- TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S NO. 855/2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.24302 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. The petitioner is seeking direction against respondents 2 to 4, not to 'harass' the petitioner and his wife in connection with Ext.P1 suit for partition, for persuading them to arrive at an unjust compromise. According to the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 are constantly summoning the petitioner to the Station House and threatening and coercing him to settle the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6, who is his sisters and her son. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, we directed the learned Government Pleader to seek instructions from respondents 1 to 4 regarding correctness of the accusations made. Smt.C.M.Charisma, learned Government Pleader, on the basis of instructions received from respondents 3 and 4, submitted that a complaint was received from the 5th respondent alleging that the petitioner had stolen certain 2 W.P.(C) No.24302 of 2011 properties from the 'tharavad' house. It is true that the petitioner was summoned in connection with enquiry of the said complaint. But it was revealed that the allegations were not true. Subsequently, the 5th respondent had filed a further complaint before the 1st respondent, which was forwarded for enquiry to the 2nd respondent. It is in connection with enquiry of the said complaint the petitioner was again required to be present before the 2nd respondent. 3. It is evident from the facts and circumstances that there exist a dispute with respect to partition of the property in co- ownership of the parties. It is further evident that a suit for partition is pending before the competent civil court. That being the situation, the dispute is that of purely civil nature. Respondents 1 to 4 have no jurisdiction to interfere in the dispute, except in case of commission of any cognizable offence. It is evident that the petitioner is residing in the 'tharavad' house and that the partition suit with respect to the said property is pending. The petitioner, being a co-owner could not be accused with criminal offence of theft or mis-appropriation of any property from the 'tharavad'. It is always left open to the parties to approach the civil court seeking appropriate reliefs on such 3 W.P.(C) No.24302 of 2011 issues. 4. However, we notice that apart from the purpose of enquiry relating to the complaints received from the 5th respondent, presence of the petitioner or his wife are not required before respondents 1 to 4. Therefore, we make it clear that if the presence of the petitioner is required for any purpose of enquiry relating to any complaint received, respondents 1 to 4 shall issue notice as contemplated under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/