IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6929 of 2011(M) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------ JAGADEESH.K.B, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL,THRIPPUNITHURA THEKKUMBHAGAM,THRIPUNITHURA, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.JOSHI RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,HILL PALACE POLICE STATION ,THRIPUNITHURA. 2. THE C.I.OF POLICE,HILL PALACE POLICE STATION,THRIPUNITHURA. 3. MRS.SANTHA, W/O.VENUGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ABILASH HOUSE,THRIPUNITHURA THEKKUMBHAGAM, THRIPUNITHURA,KANAYANNOOR TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT HILL PALACE POLICE STATION,THRIPUNITHURA. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 6929 of 2011-M ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner, who had already come to this Court and obtained Ext.P3 judgment, has come to this Court complaining of harassment by the police. 2. Vide Ext.P3 judgment it was observed that the parties must go to the civil court to get their dispute resolved. The petitioner has a civil dispute with the widow of his deceased brother. The petitioner came to this Court earlier complaining of harassment by the police and interference by them in the civil dispute between him and the 3rd respondent herein. After hearing all concerned, Ext.P3 judgment was passed. 3. The petitioner has come before this Court now with a renewed grievance of harassment by the police. According to the petitioner, the police, in spite of Ext.P3 judgment, is still attempting to harass him and take sides in the dispute between him and the 3rd respondent. Ext.P3 judgment was pronounced on 31/1/2011. We did not, in these circumstances, think it W.P.(C) No. 6929 of 2011 -: 2 :- necessary to admit this writ petition and order notice to the 3rd respondent. However, the learned Government Pleader was directed to take instructions from respondents 1 and 2. 4. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that the police have no intention to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. But, contrary to the directions in Ext.P3 judgment, neither party has gone to the civil court so far. A complaint has been received from the 3rd respondent alleging that the petitioner herein is taking law into his own hands and without and before going to the civil court is attempting to alter the situation. It is in the light of that complaint that the parties had to be called to the Police Station. The police shall not interfere in any manner in the continuation of the petitioner in the building in question; but the petitioner cannot without orders of the civil court try to alter the situation. It is only because of such allegation of alteration raised by the 3rd respondent that the police was compelled to look into the matter. The petitioner's undertaking that the petitioner shall not alter the status quo in any manner without/until he secures orders of the civil court may be recoded. In that event the police shall not interfere in the dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, W.P.(C) No. 6929 of 2011 -: 3 :- undertakes the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was only attempting to re-build a demolished compound which was available. He will not now do it until he secures orders of the civil court, it is undertaken. 6. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner on his behalf can be accepted. We are further satisfied that the submissions of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 can also be accepted. In these circumstances, it is not necessary for us to issue any further directions under Art.226 of the Constitution. 7. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, allowed in part with the above observations. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge