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 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26201 of 2008(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- JOSEPH JOHN,AGED 47 YEARS,S/O.JOHN, VELLOOKANDAM HOUSE, ELANJI KARA, ELANJI VILLAGE, KOOTHATTUKULAM TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT 18, KUMARANASAN NAGAR COLONY, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SR.) SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL SRI.DIJO SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY,KOCHI. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, KOCHI. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION,PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI. 4. K.B.PANKAJAVALLY, W/O. SASINDRAN T.K.,THOTTUNGAL NEAR AYSHA ROAD, CHAKKARAPARAMBU,PONNURUNNY, PONNURUNNI DESOM, KANAYANNOOR TALUK,KOCHI-682 019. 5. SASINDRAN.T.K., THOTTUNGAL, NEAR AYSHA ROAD, CHAKKARAPARAMBU, PONNURUNNY, PONNURUNNI DESOM, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KOCHI 682 019. BY ADV. SRI. K.K.RAVEENDRANATH SRI.K.JAJU BABU FOR R4 & R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.26201/2008 T APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4031/92 OF MARADU SRO DTD. 28/10/92. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPORT OF TALUK SURVEYOR OF KANAYANNUR TALUK DTD. 25/09/97. EXT.P2(A): COPY OF THE SKETCH OF TALUK SURVEYOR OF KANAYANNUR TALUK DTD. NIL. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN O.S.1737/97 DTD. 14/10/97. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT, S.I. OF POLICE. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RTI ACT BEFORE PIO, CITY POLICE DTD. 26/08/08. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT COMPLAINING OF HARASSMENT DTD. 27/08/08. EXT.P6(A): COPY OF THE STATEMENT BY PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 27/08/08. EXT.P6(B): COPY OF RECEIPT NO.805/CAMP/PIN/2008 ISSUED BY OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 28/08/08. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.1101/08 IN THE MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM DTD. 27/08/08. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT SERVED ON 29/08/08 ON THE PETITIONER DTD. 28/08/2008. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT GIVEN BY PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT, WITH SPEED POST RECEIPT DTD. 30/08/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: EXT.R4(A): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 16/08/08 BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss 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