IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 5087 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ R. RAJAN, S/O.RAMAN, AGED 55 YEARS VADAKKANAL PUTHAN PURAYAIL HOUSE VENNOOR P.O., VENNOOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHELAKKARA POLICE STATION, CHELAKKARA P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE PAZHYANNOOR POLICE STATION, PAZHYANNOOR P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SHEEJA MURALI, W/O.MURALI THONDAYIL HOUSE, MANCHADY JN., VENNOOR P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. PUSHPAN. R, S/O.RAMAN VADAKKANAL PUTHAN PURAYAIL HOUSE, VENNOOR P.O. VENNOOR, THRISSUR. 5. SIJI VISWAMBHARAN, W/O.VISWAMBHARAN RESIDING WITH SHEEJA MURALI, W/O.MURALI THONDAYIL HOUSE, MANCHADY JN., VENNOOR P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 5087/2008 APPENDIX PETITITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED DTD. 21.11.1981. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 9.8.2007 OF TALUK SURVEYOR. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO 2ND RESPONDENT DTD 24.9.07. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 2.2.08 TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 8.2.08 TO 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 9.2.08 OF 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 5087 OF 2008-E ----------------------------------------- Dated 18th March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking police protection against respondents 3 to 5. The 3rd and 5th respondents are his sisters and the 4th respondent is his brother. According to the petitioner, the said respondents are trespassing into his property, committing theft of the usufructs and destroying the trees and vegetables there. They also also abusing and threatening his children. The petitioner and his family members are being assaulted and manhandled, it is submitted. The petitioner has preferred representations before the police, copies of which are produced as Exts.P3 to P5. Since the police did not take any action, this writ petition is filed, seeking the following reliefs: “(i) to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the lives of the petitioner and his family from the high handed action of the respondents 3 to 5. WPC 5087/2008 2 (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 & 2 to create a peaceful atmosphere at the residence of the petitioner's house and Ext.P1 property by preventing respondents 3 to 5 from committing criminal acts. (iii) to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 & 2 to take action on Exhibits P3 to P5 complaints submitted by the petitioner.” The petitioner submits, there is already an injunction restraining the 3rd respondent from trespassing into his property. 2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that on receipt of the complaints from the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 were summoned to the Police Station and they were strictly warned, not to create any problem. 3. We notice that the mischief committed in the property can be prevented by moving the civil court, which granted the injunction against trespass. Only by committing breach of that order, the 3rd respondent can enter the property and take the usufructs and commit waste. Other offences alleged are mainly non-cognizable offences. Having regard to the nature of the dispute between the family members, we feel that it is not proper for this Court to direct the police to register any crime or investigate the same. The petitioner can move the competent civil and criminal courts to get reliefs in the matter. Therefore, we are not issuing any positive direction in this WPC 5087/2008 3 matter to the police. But, this will not affect the powers of the police to take action, if any cognizable offence is reported by the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/