IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1768 of 2008(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ GEORGE, S/O. THOMAS, KALAVATHU HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD SMT.M.S.LETHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 2. I.V. SINOJ, VALIYATHU HOUSE, PUTHANCHANDA P.O., PANMANA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 3. IBRAHIMKUTTY, VALIYATHU HOUSE, PUTHANCHANDA P.O., PANMANA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 4. SAKKIR HUSSAIN, THADATHIL VEEDU, VADAKKU,MTHALA KIZHAKKU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.C.S.DIAS SMT.R.BEENA GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 1768/2008. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DOCTOR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION LODGED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT PRAYING FOR POLICE PROTECTION FOR THE LIFE AND PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER DATED 5.1.2008. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R2(1) - COPY OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH HIS MOTHER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R2(2) – COPY OF RENEWAL AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R2(3) – COPY OF AGREEMENT EXEUCTED BY THE PETITIONER AND HIS TENANTT.J.XAVIER. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.1768 OF 2008-I ----------------------------------------- Dated 18th February, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking police protection to his life and that of his family members, in the background of the alleged threat and intimidation from the part of respondents 2 to 4. The petitioner and his mother entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent for sale of certain items of property to the said respondent. As per the said agreement the time limit for executing the sale deed expired on 4.12.2007. Though the petitioner and his mother were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, the 2nd respondent did not come forward to pay the balance consideration and did not get the agreement executed. Thereafter, on 6.12.2007. the respondents 2 to 4 trespassed into the residence of the petitioner and under threat and coercion, got an agreement executed extending the time for execution of the sale deed by another three months. Since the petitioner feared that he and his family members will be physically harmed, he happened to execute that agreement. Later, he filed WPC 1768/2008 2 Ext.P2 petition before the police on 5.1.2008, seeking protection to his life and that of his family members, pointing out the incident which took place on 6.12.2007. 2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating that in the agreement executed by the petitioner and his mother, they had agreed to evict the tenants who were occupying the building. Since the tenant did not vacate the building, the sale deed could not be executed. Later, the petitioner voluntarily, by Ext.R2(2) agreement, extended the time limit for executing the sale deed. He also entered into an agreement with the tenant, under which the said tenant was paid Rs.6 lakhs and thereupon, he agreed to vacate the tenanted building. Copy of that agreement is produced as Ext.R2 (3). 3. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that this is a civil dispute and the police cannot interfere with the same. He pointed out that Ext.P2 representation was filed only on 5.1.2008, complaining about the incident which took place on 6.12.2007. It is also submitted that though the petitioner was directed to appear before the police, he did not appear or co-operate with the police to enquire into Ext.P2. 4. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. The civil dispute WPC 1768/2008 3 between the parties has to be settled by the competent civil court. Having regard to the nature of the dispute, we are of the view that the same is not one which could be decided by the police. So, we cannot issue any direction to the police to grant protection as prayed for, in this jurisdiction. But, if the dispute between the parties result in any breach of peace, the police shall take appropriate action in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/