IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2668 of 2010(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SURESH B., AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.LATE BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT KURUMUTTATH HOUSE, KARUMALOOR P.O., MANAKKAPPADY, N.PARUR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND SRI.PRAMOD DAS LOHYA SMT.B.MEERA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SREE NARAYANA DHARMA SANGAM TRUST, SIVAGIRI MUTT, VARKALA, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT - 695 141, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. THE SREE NARAYANA DHARMA SANGAM TRUST, (BRANCH KALIKULANGARA), KALIKULANGARA, NANDYATTUKUNNAM, N.PARUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - SWAMI ANAPESHANANDA. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (ERNAKULAM RURAL), POWER HOUSE ROAD, ALUVA - 683 101. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, N.PARUR. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, N.PARUR. 6. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RANGE, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM. R3 TO R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SUKUMARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 2668 of 2010 G - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner seeks a direction to respondents 3 to 5 not to harass him and also not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property measuring 7.61 cents in Sy.No. 229/17 & 229/20 of Parur Village. 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner constructed a temporary shed in the above property for the purpose of starting a 'C' class shop for his unemployed brother. It is submitted that the Secretary of the second respondent, one Swamy Anapeshananda, came to the site and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. It is stated that the said Swamy wanted the W.P.(C).No. 2668 of 2010 2 petitioner to demolish the structure and leave the place at once. The petitioner was called to the police station. The petitioner filed Ext.P1 complaint before the 6th respondent. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned Government Pleader would submit that there is a complaint of trespass and the petitioner was summoned to the police station. The police officers advised the parties that they may approach the civil court. 5. The authority of the police is derived from various statutes governing their powers. Essentially it goes to investigation of crimes and maintenance of law and order. It ill- behoves the police interfering in a matter as if the object is to settle as a civil dispute. If an act or omission alleged constitutes a criminal act, certainly it is open to the police to take appropriate action as is justified in the facts and under law. W.P.(C).No. 2668 of 2010 3 6. Recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader, we close this Writ Petition. We also make it clear that it will not stand in the way of the police investigating the case, if any crime has been committed. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm