IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5422 of 2011(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- GOPINADHAN, S/O.SOMAN, VADAYIL VEEDU, KADAKKAVOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (RURAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 001. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKKOOTTAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 582. 3. JAYA, D/O.RADHA, VAISHNAVAM, KAZHAKKOOTTAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 582. 4. SATHEESH GOPINADHAN, S/O.GOPINADHAN, VAISHNAVAM, KAZHAKKOOTTAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 582. 5. KARUNAKARAN, SAJIBHAVAN, PULLATTUKARA, KAZHAKKOOTTAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 582. 6. RAJENDRAN, S/O.SADANANDAN, SAJIBHAVAN, PULLATTUKARA, KAZHAKKOOTTAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 582. 7. SAJI KARUNAKARAN, SAJIBHAVAN, PULLATTUKARA, KAZHAKKOOTTAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 582. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.T.K. VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.5422 of 2011-C = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of February, 2011. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. Going by the petitioner's case, the third respondent is his wife and the fourth respondent, their son. The petitioner had given a power of attorney in favour of the third respondent when he went abroad. He says that on his return, she, the son and respondents 5 to 7 are not letting him reside in the building owned by him. He also says that they are trying to characterize the petitioner as addicted to alcohol and are forcing him to go over for anti drug addiction treatment. He says that he escaped from the clutches of respondents 3 to 7 and went to his brother's house. He now seeks police intervention to ensure that the petitioner is able to reside in his own house. We think that this is a situation where the police ought not to interfere unless there is WPC5422/11 -: 2 :- really threat to life or complaint of commission of any cognizable offence or any attempt to do so. Even in that realm, the police have to confine only to their role in terms of the laws in that regard. They cannot, in any manner, interfere with the situation now obtained, as set out in the writ petition. It is for the petitioner to obtain appropriate remedies even in relation to the so-called power of attorney or in relation to the family dispute. We deem it inappropriate for the police to interfere, otherwise. We accordingly close this writ petition preserving all the rights of the petitioner and directing that respondents 1 and 2 will ensure that there is no law and order situation. The police will look into any complaint of the petitioner to the extent of what is stated above. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. S.S.Satheesachandran, Judge. Sha/2102