IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35033 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SREELATHA, W/O.K.C.ALAGIRI, AGED 39 YEARS, MULAMOOTTIL HOUSE, PUTHUSSERIMALAMURI, RANNI VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RANNI. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,RANNI. 4. RANNI PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. GOPALAN NAIR, CHARIVUKAYIL HOUSE, PUTHUSSERIMALAMURI, RANNI VILLAGE. 6. NANDAKUMAR M.G., CHARIVUKAYIL HOUSE, PUTHUSSERIMALAMURI, RANNI VILLAGE. 7. SOMASEKHARAN, VALIYAKALAYIL VEEDU, PUTHUSSERIMALAMURI, RANNI VILLAGE. 8. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, KACHERATH VEEDU, PUTHUSSERIMALAMURI, RANNI VILLAGE. 9. RAJU, ARAKKAKALAYIL VEEDU, PUTHUSSERIMALAMURI, RANNI VILLAGE. 10. SIVARAMAN NAIR, VALIYAKALAYIL VEEDU, PUTHUSSERIMALAMURI, RANNI VILLAGE. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 35033 OF 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection against the actions of respondents 5 to 10. When respondents 5 and 6 attempted to trespass into her property and tried to lay a road through it, the petitioner along with her husband filed O.S.No.398/2008 before the Munsiff Court, Ranni seeking an injunction against them. The said court passed Ext.P1 interim order restraining the respondents therein and those under them trespassing into the plaint schedule property, cutting and removing any trees standing there or committing any waste. The petitioner submits, even when the said interim order was remaining in force, respondents 4 and 5 along with others trespassed into the property and laid a road causing extensive damages to her property. So, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 petition before the Circle Inspector of Police pointing out the same. It WPC.35033/2008 -2- was on 15-11-2008 at about 10.30 p.m., the respondents 5 to 10 trespassed into the property and laid the road. The accused were carrying spades and emergency lamp. The petitioner's father and brothers and the local people have seen the incident. Therefore, the Circle Inspector was requested to take appropriate action against the respondents mentioned therein. The petitioner has also moved the civil court for prosecution of respondents 5 and 6 for the violation of the injunction order. A commissioner was appointed by the civil court and the said commissioner has filed Ext.P5 report stating that mischief has been committed, the boundary has been demolished and a pathway has been opened. The petitioner has also a grievance that the Panchayath, which is a statutory authority, is funding the illegal actions of the party respondents. In the above factual background, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to grant proper and adequate protection to the life WPC.35033/2008 -3- and property of the petitioner. ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of her property by making trespass or waste of the petitioner's property. iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining the 4th respondent from extending any sort of help, financial or other wise, for the construction of the road across the petitioner's property.” 2. Ext.P2 representation before the police is only for taking action against respondents 5 to 10 for the violation of the injunction order. We notice that there is no law which authorises the police to look into whether the injunction order of the civil court has been violated and thereafter take remedial action. For that, the petitioner has to move the civil court itself. The civil court, after considering the materials on record can address the police, if necessary, to enforce its orders. In that event the police can interfere in the matter. WPC.35033/2008 -4- 3. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the averments in Ext.P2 disclosed cognizable offences and the police are bound to take action. If upon reporting the commission of a cognizable offence, the Station House Officer does not act, the remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere. The petitioner cannot approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to redress that grievance. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.[2008 (1)K.L.T.724]. 4. The petitioner has remedies before the civil court to redress her grievance regarding violation of injunction order and it is not proper for this Court to entrust the police to go into the alleged violation of the injunction order. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and her right to move other appropriate forums. The grievances of the petitioner against the Panchayath are kept open. She may work out her remedies against the Panchayath in accordance with law. Needless to say, this judgment will not WPC.35033/2008 -5- affect the powers of the police to take appropriate action, if any cognizable offence is reported. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE ks.