1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.672 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 A.R.Manoharan : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District, Madurai. 3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District, Madurai. 4.Mr.Narayanan The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District, Madurai. 5.R.G.Ramasamy : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 from interfering in the civil dispute concerning the fifth respondent pending before the III Additional Sub-Court, Madurai in O.S.No.907 of 2010 and forcibly obtaining any document from the petitioner in favour of the fifth respondent. For Petitioner :Mr.T.R.Jeyapalam For R1 to R3 :Mr.r.Manoharan Govt. Advocate For R4 & R5 :Mr.P.Jeyaraman ORDER The alleged attempt made by the police to interfere in a civil dispute during the pendency of civil proceedings, prompted the petitioner to file the Writ petition. 2. The petitioner was given a power of attorney by one Villavan Kothai in respect of his property bearing survey No.371/1 situated in Ayan Pappakudi Village, Madurai South Taluk. The power of attorney was registered as per document No.246/1997. The petitioner executed a sale deed in favour of one Kalaiselvan as per document, dated 20.08.2001. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. While the matters stood thus, the purchaser Kalaiselvan filed a suit in O.S.No.907 of 2010 before the III Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai praying for a decree of declaration of title and consequential injunction The fifth respondent was shown as defendant along with the petitioner. The said kalaiselvan in his plaint in O.S.No.907 of 2010 contended that on the basis of the alleged sale deed, dated 08.05.1987, the fifth respondent claims title to the property and as such a declaration should be issued in his favour on the strength of his title. 4. During the pendency of the said suit, the fifth respondent preferred a complaint before the police. The police conducted enquiry and ultimately the complaint was closed. Subsequently, the fifth respondent preferred a third complaint. Under the guise of conducting enquiry, the fourth respondent compelled the petitioner to execute a document cancelling the sale deed, dated 20.08.2001. This made the petitioner to file the Writ petition. 5. The fourth respondent in his counter affidavit has contended that the petitioner was summoned only on the basis of the complaint preferred by the fifth respondent. According to the fourth respondent, he was not aware of the civil suit pending between the parties. The fourth respondent further contended that the petitioner has already executed a sale deed in favour of the fifth respondent on 08.05.1987. 6. The fifth respondent in his counter affidavit would contend that the petitioner as per sale deed, dated 08.05.1987, assigned the subject property to him and accordingly he was put in possession of the property. He further contended that the patta of the subject property was transferred in his name during the year 2005. Therefore, he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. It was his further contention that a complaint was preferred by him before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruparankundram and it was transferred to the District Crime Branch, Madurai for taking appropriate criminal action. According to the fifth respondent, the complaint preferred by him before the police was not closed and as such he is awaiting for initiating criminal action against the petitioner and his associates by police. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The issue as to whether the petitioner has conveyed valid title to the said Kalaiselvan is a matter to be decided by the Civil Court in O.S.No.907 of 2010. Admittedly, the suit was one for declaration and injunction. Therefore, the question regarding the genuineness of the alleged sale deed executed in favour of the fifth respondent on 08.05.1987, is a matter to be decided by the learned Subordinate Judge. 9. The fourth respondent in his counter affidavit has contended that a complaint was preferred by the fifth respondent and that was the reason for summoning the petitioner. In case the complaint preferred by the fifth respondent made out a criminal offence, nothing prevented the police from taking action. Under the guise of conducting enquiry, the police cannot be permitted to conduct panchayats and compel the parties to execute documents on the basis of their decision. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 10. The grievance of the petitioner is only on account of compulsion made by the fourth respondent to execute a deed of cancellation regarding the sale deed, dated 20.08.2001. Though no such cancellation deed was executed, the fourth respondent in his counter affidavit contended that a sale deed has already been executed by the petitioner in favour of fifth respondent. 11. The complaint of the petitioner is primarily against the fourth respondent as according to him it was the said respondent who compels him to execute document in favour of fifth respondent. The attempt of the fourth respondent should be to dispose of the complaint in the manner known to law The said officer is not concerned with the dispute raised by the parties The Civil Court will look into such issues and decide as to whether any such document was executed by the petitioner in favour of the fifth respondent on 08.05.1987. 12. It is true that no Mandamus could be issued to restrain the police from discharging their functions. However under the guise of discharging functions, police should not make an attempt to harass the people without registering a case. In case the complaint preferred by the parties attracts the penal provisions, it is always open to the police to register a case and to take up further investigation. The Writ petition like the present one arises only on account of the action taken by the police to act as mediators than as authorities enforcing rule of law. 13. Therefore while clarifying the position that it is always open to the police to take action as per the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and other related Acts, it is made clear that there should be no attempt on the part of the police to compel the petitioner to execute document in favour of fifth respondent during the pendency of civil proceedings. 14. The Writ petition is disposed of with the above direction and observation. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner of Police,Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police,District Crime Branch,Madurai District, Madurai. 3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch,Madurai District, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.T.R.Jeyapalam, Advocate SR.No.9706 +1cc to Mr.N.Nagendran, Advocate SR.No.9779 W.P.(MD)No.672 of 2011 22.02.2011 pm PA/08.03.2011/3P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/