IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1052 of 2008(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. KARUNAKARAN, S/O.ACHAPPA, AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT THAIPARAMBIL, PACHATTIRI AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 2. CHANDRAN, S/O.ACHAPPA, AGED 48 YEARS,....DO...... 3. VELAYUDHAN, S/O.ACHAPPA, AGED 45 YEARS,.-DO-. BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE A.S.I. OF POLICE, TIRUR POLICE STATION. 2. THE S.I OF POLICE, TIRUR POLICE STATION. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUR. 4. KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.ACHAPPA, AGED 53 YEARS, PACHATTIRI AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SALIM .P.A. BY ADV. SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.1052/2008 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.231/2007, MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR. EXT.P2: COPY OF WRITTEN COMPLAINT TO THE DySP, TIRUR, DTD. 9/10/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.32906/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF DETAILED COMPLAINT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DySP, TIRUR ON 12.12.2007. 2ND RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: EXT.R2(A): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE SUPT. OF POLICE DTD. 19/10/2007. EXT.R2(B): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR, TIRUR. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ======================== W.P(C).No.1052 of 2008 ======================== Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioners have approached this Court alleging that respondents 1 and 2 are harassing them at the instance of the fourth respondent relying on a judgment of this Court, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3. It was a case where the fourth respondent sought police protection to pluck coconuts from the properties covered by two title deeds mentioned therein as Exts.P2 and P4. This Court declined to grant the prayer and kept the rights of the petitioner therein open so that he can approach the civil court. Misreading that order now the police is granting protection to the fourth respondent and the petitioners are being harassed, it is submitted. 2. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations against him. He submits, he only directed the parties to approach the civil court . He also took steps to depute WP(C) 1052/08 -: 2 :- a police constable to avoid untoward incidents, if any. The fourth respondent also denies the allegations against him. We record the statement of the learned Government Pleader that the police will not interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Recording the above submission, the writ petition is closed. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 25/1