IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 8584 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ABDUL KAREEM AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. MEETHEEN KUNJU AND SARA,KANIYAVELI PARAMBIL HOUSE,CHALIKKAVATTAM DESOM, EDAPPILLY SOUTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DIST. 2. KHADEEJA, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. ABDUL KAREEM, KANIYAVELI PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHALIKKAVATTAM DESOM,EDAPPILLY SOUTH VILLAGE ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, LAW AND ORDER, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBALAMEDU POLICE STATION. 3. SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN, THE ADDITIONAL SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBALAMEDU POLICE STATION 4. KUNJACHI, W/O. ALI, AGED 62 YEARS, PUZHAKKARA HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT PINERMUNDA (NEAR MUSLIM MOSQUE)VETTARMOOLAYIL VEEDU, PERINGALA.P.O., KUMARAPURAM,KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 5. SHAMEENA AGED 32 YEARS, D/O. ALI, PUZHAKKARA HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT PINERMUNDA (NEAR MUSLIM MOSQUE) VETTARMOOLAYIL VEEDU, PERINGALA.P.O.,KUMARAPURAM,KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 6. BASHEER, S/O.ALIYAR, AGED 35 YEARS, PUZHAKKARA HOUSE,NOW RESIDING AT PINERMUNDA (NEAR MUSLIM MOSQUE) VETTARMOOLAYIL VEEDU, PERINGALA.P.O.,KUMARAPURAM, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8584 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. The petitioners are husband and wife. Party respondents are relatives of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, when there was an attempt to trespass into the petitioners' property, they have instituted a suit before the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor, and an order of injunction was obtained. It is alleged that respondents 2 and 3, under the influence of respondents 4 to 6, summoned the petitioners to the police station, and by using force, obtained signatures of the first petitioner, without permitting them to know the contents. 2. When the matter came up for admission, it was adjourned, so as to get instructions in the matter. 3. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that 5th respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioners. He has also produced a copy of the W.P.(C) No.8584 of 2009 2 extract of the Register of petitions, which shows that Shameena, D/o.Ali, had raised a complaint against the first petitioner, and in order to know the truth or otherwise of the same, the petitioners were summoned to the police station. But the other allegation that anything was got signed from them is denied, and it is clarified that signature was obtained from the first petitioner in the Register of petition. It is also submitted that police will not interfere in the matters of civil nature, especially, when the case is pending before a competent civil court. The above submission is recorded. In the above circumstances, considering the factual situation, we do not find any reason to proceed further in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. nj.