IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9470 of 2011(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.P.SAINABA, AGED 59 YEARS, W/O.ABBAS, R/AT.NEAR PRIMARY HEALTH CENTER, ENNAPPARA, THAYANUR P.O., KODOM BELUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SUNNY NAMBIAMPARAMBIL, S/O.LUKOSE, R/AT.ERUVATTI, THIMIRI VILLAGE, TALIPARAMBU TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 542. 2. S.I. OF POLICE, RAJAPURAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 532. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASARAGOD, PIN-671 121. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 121. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, PANATHADY VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 533. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. R1 BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE R2 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.9470/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 8/4/1986 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND EXECUTED BY ONE NEELIYARA JOSEPH. P2 COPY OF THE GIFT DEED DATED 18/10/1988 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER EXECUTED BY HER HUSBAND ABBAS. P3 COPY OF THE MORTGAGE CERTIFICATE 8/9/2004 ISSUED BY THE HOSDURG PRIMARY CO.OP. AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. P3(A) COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED DATED 17/7/2008 ISSUED BY THE HOSDURG PRIMARY CO.OP. AGRICULATURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. P4 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 2/6/2008 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER, HER HUSBAND AND SON IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE TAHSILDAR DATED 16/2/2011 BY THE PETITIONER. P6 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE S.I. OF POLICE RAJAPURAM BY THE PETITIONER. P6(A) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BY THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND. P6(B) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER GOVERNMENT OF KERALA BY THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND. P7 COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT DATED 4/3/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.9470 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th April, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition claiming police protection against the apprehended culpable and violent conduct on the part of respondent No.1. 2. The petitioner, a woman, claims to be the owner of a parcel of land. There was an agreement between her and the first respondent regarding the sale of that property. The sale has not gone through so far. The first respondent is threatening and intimidating the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends that the first respondent may physically throw her out of possession. The police are guilty of inaction and it is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition. 3. Respondent No.1 has entered appearance. The learned counsel for the first respondent submits that a suit is pending between the parties. The first respondent shall WPC No.9470/2011 2 abide by the decision in the suit. There shall be no attempt on his part to indulge in any violent and contumacious conduct against the petitioner herein. In these circumstances, no specific directions are necessary, submits the learned counsel for the first respondent. 4. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 2 to 5 submits that the police shall not in any way interfere in the civil dispute between the parties. It is for the parties to seek appropriate directions from the police for a proper resolution of the civil dispute between them. If there be any culpable conduct on the part of the petitioner or the first respondent, necessary action shall be taken by the police to prevent such culpable conduct. This undertaking may be recorded. No specific directions are hence necessary, submits the learned Government Pleader. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. Primarily, it is the duty of the police to maintain law and order and to prevent commission of crimes. Ordinarily, it is not necessary for this Court to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and issue any directions to WPC No.9470/2011 3 the police regarding maintenance of law and order. Exceptional circumstances may exist in the facts of a given case which may persuade this Court to invoke and exercise the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue specific directions. In the instant case, we do not find any such circumstances. We accept the submission of the learned counsel for the first respondent that the first respondent shall abide by the decision of the civil court. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the police shall not intervene in the civil dispute, but shall take appropriate and effective action, if either party were involved in commission of any crimes. 6. Accepting the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader, this writ petition is dismissed. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/