IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2231 of 2011(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RAJU, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. KURUMBAN, MADAGATTU PARAMBIL HOUSE, ALANGADU PAKUTHI PADIJAREKADUNGALOOR KARA, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY (LAW AND ORDER) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 690 001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA - 683 006. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BINANIPURAM - 683 108. 4. DEEPA, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O. MANI, POONELIL HOUSE, ALANGADU PAKUTHI PADIJAARE KADUNGALOOR KARA, ERNAKULAM DIST - 683 130. 5. DEEPESH, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. MOHANAN, PALITHINGAL (H), THRIKKAKKARA NORTH VILLAGE, JYALAKAM KARA, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 020. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. CHARISHMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.2231/2011 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.168/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS NO.4 & 5 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, N.PARAVOOR DTD. 26/03/2008. P2: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.35/2011 OF THE SUB COURT, N.PARAVOOR DTD. 12/01/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Civil) No.2231 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011 Judgment Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this court with this petition complaining of harassment by the police officials who are unnecessarily interfering with the civil dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and respondents 4 and 5 on the other. 2. According to the petitioner, respondents 4 and 5 are owners of an item of property. The petitioner has entered into an agreement with them for purchase of the property. The agreement has not been complied with. The petitioner has gone to the court with a suit for specific performance. Respondents 4 and 5 have also gone to the court claiming an injunction restraining the petitioner from entering the property. Both the suits are pending before the civil court. The grievance of the petitioner is that the police is unnecessarily interfering with the civil dispute between the parties and they are trying to help respondents 4 and 5. WPC 2231/2011 2 3. Respondents 4 and 5 have entered appearance. According to them, the allegations are totally false. The petitioner is guilty of trespassing into the property of respondents 4 and 5 and committing waste. A complaint has been filed before the police. Before the civil court, a commission has been taken out and the Commissioner has reported the alleged act of destruction. Respondents 4 and 5 submit that the attempt of the petitioner is to prevent the legal action being taken against him by the police. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submits that the police have no intention to interfere in the civil dispute between the parties. But, if there is any culpable act committed by either, the police is duty bound to take necessary action. Otherwise their civil dispute has to be settled by the parties by seeking orders from the civil court. 5. We are satisfied that no directions are necessary to be issued in this case. Parties are already before the civil court and their disputes will have to be resolved in accordance with law. But, if during the pendency of the civil suit, either party were to take law into his hand and commit crimes, needless to say, the WPC 2231/2011 3 police is bound to take necessary action. We accept the submissions of the learned Government Pleader that necessary action shall be taken by the police if there there is any culpable acts committed by either of the party. We do not want to pronounce any opinion on the acceptability of the rival contentions on the contumacious role of the other in the dispute between the parties. We need only mention that the police need not interfere in the civil dispute between the parties. But, if there is any culpable acts during the pendency of the civil dispute, necessary action will have to be taken by respondents 2 and 3. R.BASANT, JUDGE. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. srd WPC 2231/2011 4