IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 26572 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SINGHARA VELU KOUNDER, S/O.ANDIYAPPA KOUNDER, POOCHANARI MARDHANAIKEN PALAYAM, POLLACHI TALUK, COIMBATORE DIST, TAMILNADU. NOW RESIDING AT CHARALAPATHY, MEENAKSHIPURAM POST, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL MATHEW (PERUMPILLIL) SRI.P.V.SREENIJIN SMT.K.B.SONY SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHITTOOR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. 3. SULAIMAN, S/O.ANEEFA ROWTHER, MEENAKSHIPURAM, NOOLATHARA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. SHAJAHAN, S/O.SULAIMAN, MEENAKSHIPURAM, NOOLATHARA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. ADV. SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR (SR.) FOR R3 & 4 SRI.P.G.RAJAGOPALAN FOR R3 & 4 SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR FOR R3 & 4 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. - R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 26572/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 12.8.2008 RECORDED BY CHITTUR POLICE. EXT.P2 - COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO THE HOME MINISTER OF KERALA. EXT.P3 - RECEIPT ISSUED BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD, REGARDING THE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLAINT. EXT.P4 - RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REGARD THE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLAINT. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 26572 OF 2008-L ----------------------------------------- Dated 29th October, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner submits, he is residing in Charalapathy, Meenakshipuram. Chittur Taluk of Palakkad district. On 12.8.2008, the respondents 3 and 4 trespassed into his house and caused damage to his residential building. On the basis of the information lodged by him, the police have registered a crime as per Ext.P1 F.I.R., for the offences punishable under Sections 427 and 452 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C against the said respondents. The petitioner submits, again the respondents 3 and 4 trespassed into his house on 25.8.2008 and committed theft of valuable ornaments and cash. Since the local police did not take any action on his complaint, he filed Ext.P2 representation before the Government. The petitioner also filed a representation before the 2nd respondent Sub Inspector of Police, as evident from WPC 26572/08 2 Ext.P4 receipt, which was followed by another representation dated 26.8.2008 before the 1st respondent Superintendent of Police. Alleging that the police did not take any action to protect his life, this Writ Petition is filed, seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. The respondents 3 and 4 would point out that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the said respondents concerning the sale of a property. The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance and respondents 3 and 4 filed a suit for recovery of possession. The trial court decreed the suit filed by the petitioner and dismissed the suit filed by the said respondents. But, this Court reversed both the judgments. The suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the suit filed by respondents 3 and 4 for recovery of possession was decreed, holding that the petitioner is entitled to get the value of improvements made by him and respondents 3 and 4 are entitled to get the mesne profits. Now, the trial court has passed orders quantifying the value of improvements as also the mesne profits. The respondents 3 and 4 would also submit that the decree has been executed and the court has delivered the property to WPC 26572/08 3 them on 25.10.2008. 3. In view of the above factual position, the prayer of the petitioner for police protection to his life cannot be granted. If such an order is passed, the same will be used for defeating or nullifying the orders of the civil court. We find that the police have no power or authority to meddle in this civil dispute and to grant protection to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. But, this will not affect the powers of the police to take action in accordance with law, if any cognizable offence is reported from either side. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/