IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27873 of 2011(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BABY VARGHESE, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, OOMELIL VEEDU KUMARANASAN ROAD,ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP, SRI.S.SREEDEV. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM-682 032. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM- 682 017. 3. CLETUS JOSEPH, AGED 50, S/O. JOSEPH, THALAKKETTY HOUSE, PALATHURUTHU DESAM, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM-682 017. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1,R2&R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.27873/2011 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM IN I.A 5793/2011 IN O.S. 838/2011 DTD. 26.09.2011. EXT.P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DTD. 1.10.2011 IN I.A 5796/2011 IN O.S. 838/2011 OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss PIUS C KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ --------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 27873 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT C.K. Abdul Rehim, J. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is complaining about illegal and high handed interference of respondents 1 and 2 in a civil dispute, which exist between the petitioner and the third respondent. Inter alia, the petitioner is seeking police protection for the lives of himself and his son from the alleged threat and intimidations caused by the third respondent. 2. From the averments it is evident that there exists some dispute relating to a property owned by the petitioner and the petitioner had already approached the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam in O.S. No. 838/2011 seeking prohibitory injunction against the third respondent. Ext.P1 is the interim order passed by the Munsiff Court, restraining the third respondent from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the building situated in the property and also restraining him from preventing the petitioner from entering 2 WP(C) No. 27873/2011 into and enjoying the property in question. It is further stated that when the 3rd respondent created mischief, the petitioner had approached the second respondent with a complaint. But under the undue influence of the third respondent the second respondent is showing reluctance to enquire into the matter and to take any action. While so, on 19.10.2011, the first respondent summoned to the petitioner and his son and compelled them to settle the dispute. Since they were amenable for such demand, the respondents 1 and 2 have threatened and harassed the petitioner and his son, are the allegations. 3. When the matter came up for consideration, we directed the learned Government Pleader to ascertain regarding the veracity of the acquisitions made. Sri. Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 4, submitted that the Sub Inspector of Police had summoned the petitioner only on the basis of a complaint received from the third respondent. But when it is realised that the dispute is that of civil nature, which is pending before the Munsiff Court, the parties were advised to seek appropriate remedy from that Court. However, it is stated that 3 WP(C) No. 27873/2011 the presence of the petitioner is no more required for any purpose of investigation or enquiry and that the police authorities are not intending to interfere in any manner in the dispute pending between the petitioner and the third respondent. 3. We record the submissions made on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and dispose of the matter restraining respondents 1 and 2 from interfering with the dispute in question in any manner. We also direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take effective steps if there is any threat to the life of the petitioner and his family members and to ensure that the dispute does not lead to any violence or breach of peace. PIUS C KURIAKOSE JUDGE C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc