IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 6588 of 2010(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ACHUTHAN NAIR @ BALAN, S/O.LAKSHMIKUTTYAMMA,AGED 74 YEARS,KARUMATHIL HOUSE,KANIPPAYYUR VILLAGE, THALAPPALLY TALUK, THRISSUR(DIST). BY ADV. SRI.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM SRI.SUDHEESH.A. SMT.C.V.BINDU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNAMKULAM CIRCLE. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNAMKULAM CIRCLE. 3. PARAMESWARAN NAIR,S/O.LAKSHMIKUTTYAMMA, KARUMATHIL HOUSE,THALAKKOTTUKARA DESOM,KANIPPAYYUR VILLAGE, THALAPPALLY TALUK,THRISSUR(DIST). ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH FOR R3 SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY FOR R3 R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C). No.6588 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner has approached this court complaining that respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the Circle Inspector and Sub Inspector of Police respectively are harassing him by intervening in a civil dispute which he is having with the 3rd respondent, his brother. Sri. Santheep Ankarath appearing for the 3rd respondent submitted that his instructions are to the effect that the dispute between the brothers have been almost settled and an agreement will be shortly executed. The learned Govt. Pleader Mr. Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran submitted that he is yet to get instructions from respondents 1 and 2 regarding the correctness of the accusations of harassment. Mr. Bobby Mathew Koothattukulam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without any justification the first respondent WP(C). 6588/10 -2- Circle Inspector would intervene in a civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. This suit filed by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner was dismissed. OS. No. 134 of 2010, a suit for injunction filed by the petitioner against the 3rd respondent is pending. on 27-2-2010 the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad on entertaining O.S.134/10 filed by the petitioner directed both sides to maintain status quo as obtaining on that day. The Advocate Commissioner who was appointed by the court reported that the petitioner is in physical control of the room. Noticing the order of status quo and the filing of report by the Commissioner the first respondent would come over to the room in question and forcefully locked up the room and take away the key. The situation presently obtaining is that the room remains under the lock and key of the first respondent. This is is patently illegal. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and taking due note of the circumstance in this WP(C). 6588/10 -3- writ petition where serious allegations have been raised against the first respondent who has not imparted any instructions to the learned Govt. Pleader, we are of the view that there was atleast an attempt by the first respondent to intervene in a civil dispute. This was not legal. However, in view of the submissions of Mr. Santheep Ankarath that the issue between the parties is almost settled we dispose of this writ petition directing the first respondent to produce the key of the building in question before the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad in OS. No. 134/10. This in our view is necessary even for implementing the proposed compromise between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (K. HARILAL, JUDGE) ksv/-