IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20919 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THOMAS, AGED 48, S/O. NELLIKUNNEL ISSAC, MANALITHARA VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR. 3. MOHANAN, S/O. KUNJI PILLAI, PULLOLICKAL HOUSE, KOLATHASSERY DESOM, MANALITHARA VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK. 4. PRASAD, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.20919 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JULY, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the owner of a property having an extent of 40 cents. When the 3rd respondent and others tried to cut open a pathway through that property, the petitioner moved the civil court and obtained Exhibit P1 judgment and Exhibit P2 decree. When the petitioner attempted to construct a fencing for his property, the 3rd respondent obstructed. They threatened and manhandled him, it is alleged. They also committed mischief in the property. So, he filed Exhibit P3 representation before the first respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police. Since the police did not take any action, this Writ Petition is filed seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. If anybody is opposing the construction of the fencing to the petitioner's property, his remedy lies before the civil court. The police have no duty to assist a land owner to construct his fencing when the same is obstructed by the neighbouring property owners. The petitioner submits, the first respondent who is bound to register a crime and investigate the same on receiving Exhibit P3, which is a W.P.(C)No.20919/08 -2- petition disclosing cognizable offences is now siding with the 3rd respondent. So, this Court may issue appropriate directions to him. If an information is lodged disclosing cognizable offences and the Station House Officer does not register a crime, the aggrieved person has remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it is unnecessary for this Court to exercise the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. It may not be proper also in view of the recent decision of the Apex Court, reported in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008(1) KLT 724). In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn