IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 3572 of 2011(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- M.VIJAYAKUMARI, D/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 43 YEARS, CHALAMPULLY THODUKAD, VAVULLIAPURAM.P.O., ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD – 678 001. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD – 678 001. 3. CHANDRAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 58 YEARS, HOUSE NO.17/37, NEAR SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD – 678 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA R3 BY ADVS. SRI. SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 3572 of 2011(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DT. 11/07/10. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DT. 11/07/10. EXT.P3 : COPY OF COMPLAINT DT. 28/10/10. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(1) : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN OS NO. 520/1993 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, PALAKKAD. EXT.R3(2) : COPY OF THE WILL DATED 27.3.1996 EXECUTED BY SWAMINATHAN. EXT.R3(3) : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 508/2007 ON THE FILE OF SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD. EXT.R3(4) : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.10.2007 PASSED IN WP(C) NO. 23890/2007 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.R3(5) : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2009 PASSED IN WP(C) NO. 26646/2009 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.R3(6) : COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 415/2006 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, PALAKKAD. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.3572 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. Between the petitioner and the third respondent, there are civil disputes. They have conflicting claims over an item of property. The third respondent claims to reside in that property. This is not the first time that the parties have come to this Court. Ext.R3(4) and Ext.R3(5) judgments show that the petitioner had come to this Court earlier seeking directions for police protection. 2. Those petitions were dismissed with appropriate observations directing the parties to seek orders from the civil court. The petitioner for a change has now come to this court not with a claim for police protection, but with the grievance of harassment by the police. According to the petitioner, civil courts have not passed any final or interim orders, but the police are unnecessarily interfering in the civil dispute between the parties. It is in these circumstances prayed that respondents 1 and 2, police wpc No.3572/2011 2 officials may be directed not to intervene in the civil dispute and cause harassment to the petitioner. 3. The third respondent has entered appearance. The learned counsel for the third respondent submits that the third respondent has already gone to the civil court and the civil suit is pending. No interim orders have been secured. The parties may be directed to get their disputes resolved by resort to the legal process. No directions may be issued in favour of the petitioner, prays the learned counsel for the third respondent. 4. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that there are disputes between the petitioner and the third respondent. It is for the petitioner and the third respondent to go to the civil court and seek appropriate directions. Police do not intend to intervene in the civil dispute between the parties. If there is any commission of culpable offences, police shall take action in accordance with law. The police shall not intervene in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent, undertakes the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. wpc No.3572/2011 3 5. We are satisfied in these circumstances that no further directions under Article 226 of the Constitution are necessary in the matter. We accept the submission/undertaking by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. We direct the parties to seek appropriate orders from the civil court, if they are so advised. No further or specific directions are necessary in the matter in the light of the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. This writ petition is in these dismissed with the above observations. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/