IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11273 of 2010(H) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SIVAN PILLAI, S/O.RAMAYYA PILLAI, SIVA BHAVAN, VANKODU, UZHAMALACKAL VILLAGE, ARYANADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARYANADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARYANADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DHARMAVATHI, D/O.SARASAMMA, SARGA BHAVAN PARANDODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SREEKUMAR, S/O.DHARMAVATHI, -DO-, -DO-. 6. PADMAKUMAR, S/O.DHAMAYANTHI, POTTANCHIRA, PARANDODU P.O., S.N.NAGAR, ARYANADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. PREMKUMAR, S/O.PUSHPAN PANICKAN, THADATHIL ARIKATHU VEEDU, KILIYANNOOR VETTAYIL, PARANDODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. SHIBU, S/O.PUSHPAN PANICKAN, -DO-. 9. JOY, S/O.SATHYARAJAN, VIJAYA BHAVAN, KOCHUKARIKOTHY, PARANDODU P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. PODIYAN @ KARIPODIYAN, S/O.RANGAN MAESTRI, KOTTACKAM MURIYIL, VALIYAKALUNKU JN., PARANDODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. W.P.(C).NO.11273 OF 2010 H 11. THAMBI, S/O.APPU PANICKAN, THADATHIL ARIKATHU (H), KILIYANNOOR VETTAYIL, PARANDODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 12. VASANTHA AMMAL, W/O.SUBRAMANIAN PILLAI, KUNNUMPURATHU (H), PARANDODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 13. SUBRAMANIAN PILLAI, -DO-, -DO-. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 11273 OF 2010 H --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st March, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to arrest respondents 5 to 11 in Crime No.183/2010 of Aryanadu Police Station and to give adequate and proper protection for the life of the petitioner and his workers from the threats of respondents 4 to 11. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is an Ex-service Man. Petitioner had an ancestral property of 5.40 acres. After the demise of his father, his mother executed a Settlement Deed whereby 2.40 acres of property has been settled upon the petitioner. The 12th respondent is his sister and the 13th respondent is her husband. There was a litigation. Ultimately, it is alleged that by Ext.P1, there is an agreement between the parties. Ext.P3 is an order of WPC.11273/2010 H 2 interim injunction passed by the trial court at the instance of respondents 12 and 13 against the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Ext.P4 is the order by which the interim order of injunction was extended till the disposal of I.A.No.1036/08. It is the case of the petitioner that Exts.P2 to P4 will show that the fourth respondent has not got any perfect or clear title. It is stated that the fourth respondent is highly influential with the police. Ext.P5 is a Judgment wherein the trial court disbelieving the evidence of fourth respondent, acquitted respondents 12 and 13. It is stated that there is a complaint given. Exts.P6 and P7 are the complaints given. Ext.P8 is a copy of the OP record produced to show that respondents 5 to 11 have attacked the petitioner. Ext.P9 is the true copy of the FIR. It is also stated that Ext.P10 is a false counter case. Petitioner has addressed Exts.P11 and P12 representations. 3. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. We notice Ext.P2 Judgment dated 31.10.2009. We also further notice that actually Exts.P3 and P4 are interlocutory orders obtained against the petitioner and the fourth respondent by WPC.11273/2010 H 3 respondents 12 and 13. On a whole, we are of the view that this is a case where the petitioner should be relegated to pursue his remedies before the civil court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to approach the competent civil court or any other Forum as advised. We further direct that if the petitioner files any complaint making out commission of any cognizable offence, necessary action will be taken on the same in accordance with law. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge