IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6296 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. KADAVATH MUHAMMEDALI, S/O.KAMMUNNI HAJI, AGED 76 YEARS, KADAVATH HOUSE, THAZHATHANGADI, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. NAFEESA, W/O.KADAVATH MUHAMMED ALI, KADAVATH HOUSE, THAZHATHANGADI, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AREACODE POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, MALAPPURAM. 3. KADAVATH MAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.UNNIMOYINKUTTY, KADAVATH HOUSE, THAZHATHANGADI, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. KADAVATH MUHAMMED SHEREEF @ SHEREEF S/O.MAMMEDKUTTY, KADAVATH HOUSE, THAZHATHANGADI, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. KADAVATH MUHAMMED ALI, S/O.MAMMEDKUTTY, KADAVATH HOUSE, THAZHATHANGADI, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 6296/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.6.2007. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 2.9.2007. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.2.2008. EXT.P3(a) – TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF EXT.P2 COMPLAINT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 6296 OF 2008-Y ----------------------------------------- Dated 4th March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. There is some dispute between the petitioners and the party respondents herein concerning a small parcel of land having an extent of about 3 cents. The petitioners submit that the 2nd petitioner has already instituted a civil suit as O.S.No.340/2005 before the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri, seeking appropriate reliefs against the 3rd respondent. The respondents 4 and 5 are the children of the said respondent. But, the police are unnecessarily interfering in the said civil dispute at the instance of the party respondents and harassing the petitioners to withdraw the suit and settle the matter with the party respondents. Feeling aggrieved by the said conduct of the police in interfering with the above civil suit, this writ petition is filed, seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that in fact, at one time, the District Superintendent of Police interfered in the matter, as evident from Ext.P1 communication. Later, the petitioners backed out from the settlement suggested by the D.S.P. Now, the 4th 2 respondent has filed a petition before the D.S.P. The said officer marked it for enquiry to the 1st respondent Sub Inspector of Police. So, the S.I of Police only enquired into the matter. The learned Government Pleader denies the allegations against the police that they are trying to interfere in the civil dispute in favour of the party respondents. The party respondents deny the allegations against them. They pointed out that it was the petitioners who moved the police and persuaded them to interfere in the civil dispute at the first instance. Therefore, the present motion made before this Court is without any bona fides, it is submitted. 3. The submission of the learned Government Pleader that the police have no intention to interfere in the civil dispute and they only enquired into the matter when a petition was received from the 4th respondent is recorded and the Writ Petition is disposed of. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/ 3