IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29267 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONERS --------------- 1. HAMSA, S/O.LATE MOHAMMED HAJI, AGED 45, CHANDRATHIL PARAMBU, PUTHUPALLIPRAM KARA EDAPPALLY PO., KANAYANNUR TALUK. 2. BANSHIRA W/O.HAMSA, AGED 40, CHANDRATHIL PARAMBU ,PUTHUPALLIPRAM KARA EDAPPALLY PO., KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION 4. N.C.VARGHESE, AGED 70, MATHASI CHACKO NEDUVELIL HOUSE, KEEZHUKARA VILLAGE KOZHANCHERI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA NOW R/AT.PAVION IIIRD FLOOR, C-3, THRIKKAKARA ROAD, EDAPPALLY. 5. M/S.SKYLINE BUILDERS, SKYLINE HOUSE RAJAJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682035. BY GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.29267 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are husband and wife. They owned two items of properties having an extent of 35.6 cents and 16.6 cents. Both the properties were got by the first petitioner from his father. Later, he settled 50% of the undivided share in that two items of properties in favour of the second petitioner, who is his wife. The 4th respondent along with others is the owner of an extent of 86.83 cents of adjacent land. There is a pathway leading to the property of the petitioners. The 4th respondent and other owners are also entitled to use that pathway. The said respondent entered into an arrangement with the 5th respondent, who is a builder and a residential flat has been constructed there. Now they want to construct boundary wall for their property. In that process, the petitioners submit, they are encroaching into the pathway and reducing its width. Therefore, the petitioners moved the civil court and obtained Exhibit P2 injunction order. Now, it is alleged that in violation of that injunction order, respondents 4 and 5 are acting. Therefore, the first petitioner has moved the civil court concerned for prosecuting them. He also filed Exhibit P3 W.P.(C)No.29267/08 -2- representation before the Circle Inspector of Police pointing out the alleged trespass by respondents 4 and 5. While so, the Sub Inspector of Police, the 3rd respondent herein, called the first petitioner to the Police Station and he was threatened not to cause obstruction to the respondents 4 and 5 in erecting the compound wall and so he filed Exhibit P4 representation before the first respondent, pointing out the above highhanded actions of the Sub Inspector of Police. Thereafter this Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following reliefs: (a) Issue appropriate writ or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to prevent the illegal and highhanded act of the 3rd respondent and to prevent the harassment; (b) issue appropriate direction to the 3rd respondent not to interfere in civil disputes and to prevent violation of Exhibit P2 order of injunction. 2. If respondents 4 and 5 are not respecting Exhibit P2 order and violating the same, the petitioners can not only move for prosecution of them, they can also move the Munsiff's Court, to address the police to render assistance to the petitioners to enforce the order. If there is such an order, the 3rd respondent will not dire to act against it. This police harassment jurisdiction which is essentially a jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ to the police against unlawful action is not supposed to be W.P.(C)No.29267/08 -3- invoked at the drop of a hat on the allegation of a Sub Inspector of Police saying something against the petitioners and acts in favour of the party respondents. It does not enable the petitioners to rush to this Court. They have to invoke other remedies available to them. In view of the remedies available to the petitioners, it is unnecessary for this Court to invoke the writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners and their right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn